What do you want to know about German history?

[Freodin]

I already have multiple times. Friedrich Wilhelm I brought militarism to the forefront of Prussian life, as it was at the forefront of his life. His son Friedrich the Great won incredible victories over many years of legendary fighting. After resting too much on Friedrich's victories (credit, Queen Luise), the Prussians were instrumental in defeating Napoleon, the greatest military man in the last 1,000 years. Then, the Prussians defeated Austria and assumed leadership of the German states through their military, by routing Austria in just 7 weeks of war and because no other German state thereafter dared challenge them. Then, in 1870-71, the Prussian military absolutely outclassed France's military is every way in an incredibly important war to both nations, and the German states unified in January 1871 to form the German Empire.

You know all this and tried to deny the impact of Prussian militarism in it, as you will again. We're going in circles.

So, you cannot adress my point, you continue to ignore them, keep misrepresenting them... and still do not present any source of your own.

Thanks for your interest... this discussion is over.

 

[LucasWhite]

Napoleon Bonaparte, Gustav Adolf of Sweden, Wellington, Henry V, Eugen of Savoy, John Churchill Duke of Marlborough, Wallenstein, Tilly... all of them were... non-white and non-militarist? Only Prussian leaders were white and militaristic?

Yes, but those nations did not have Nazis that followed them. You do not live in those nations. Therefore, you do not feel the social/political/legal pressure. Germany is trying to wash out anything that might give pride in race, nationalism, and militarism because they have a big fear/guilt of the Nazi era. Race is part of history, and it affects the word today, as it is affecting Germany in this way right now.

I was the only one who provided a source

Go back through this thread and count how many books that I have referenced and how many that you have referenced. The primary sources are the ones written by the actors such as Bismarck, Hindenburg, Moltke, Wilhelm II, Ludendorff...you know this. I am saying that the primary sources and all history give evidence to what I am saying. It is a wide-ranging question, and you can't really prove or disprove it with a couple of paragraphs, and can't prove it at all because it's subjective. I just summarized Prussian militarism again for you one more time, why, I don't know...because you already know how critical it was to Prussian life from the time of Friedrich Wilhelm I forward.

 

[LucasWhite]

It was also the same Friedrich the Great who didn't care about any kind of religion or race, if his country would profit from immigrants, and considered building Mosques for potential ottoman immigrants. Yes, anti-white and anti-militarist, this one.

Yes, Friedrich the Great had an excellent soul. However, his legacy (among the German establishment) indirectly suffers today from Nazism. The schools want to play down the importance of all Prussian military glory.

 

[LucasWhite]

Thanks for your interest... this discussion is over.

Okay, go read your favorite novel, Der abenteuerliche Simplicissimus Teutsch.

 

[Freodin]

Now that a little grass has grown over the curious discussion of the last posts, and we all seem to have a little time on our hands... I'd like to revive this thread.

And perhaps expand it, as much as I can.

So, anyone who wants to know anything about german history? Or Germany in general?

 

[mindlight]

Now that a little grass has grown over the curious discussion of the last posts, and we all seem to have a little time on our hands... I'd like to revive this thread.

And perhaps expand it, as much as I can.

So, anyone who wants to know anything about german history? Or Germany in general?

Why was the scapegoating of the Jews during the Black death so much worse than in other countries. Were there Germans that helped Jews escape to Casimirs Poland?

Did the Black Death prompt any notable revolts or reforms in feudal structures or did this vary by state

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius is there any evidence that the Antonine plague afflicted the German barbarians on the far side of the Rhine as much as those within Romes borders. To what extent were Roman garrisons on the Rhine weakened by this plague?

What prompted the emergence of a German health system. Was it originally Germany wide or local in scope

Are the Germans today ethnically the same as those that lived here in the time of Rome. What are the main tribes that form the root of the main German population today

Is German pacifism unique to the post Cold war period or is something that reoccurs in German history. Did that pacifism result in easy conquest by more aggressive powers in history

 

[Freodin]

Wow... that's a lot, and very diverse. Let's see...

Why was the scapegoating of the Jews during the Black death so much worse than in other countries. Were there Germans that helped Jews escape to Casimirs Poland?

The "scapegoating" wasn't worse than anywhere else. The scope of respective persecutions was mostly due to a combination of prevalence of jewish presence and the capabilities of intervening powers.
Most fundamentally it was just a question of availability. Due to historical chance, central and southern Germany had some of the oldest and largest continuous jewish communities.
So the most violence happened where there were the most victims, combined with a inability or unwillingness of regional powers to prevent them.

Were there Germans that helped Jews escape to Casimirs Poland?

Possibly. I don't know of any sources documenting that, and most likely the escape to other countries and regions would have gone through inner-jewish circles.
Most people who tried to protect the Jews didn't do so to save individuals or for humanitarian reasons... they had economic reasons. So rather then have them "escape" to other countries, it was better to protect them locally, as a number a regional powers tried to do.
Even Casimir didn't invite the Jews because he was such a nice guy... he also wanted jewish immigrants to strengthen his economy.

Did the Black Death prompt any notable revolts or reforms in feudal structures or did this vary by state

Not in the direct aftermath. Whatever "notable revolts" resulted from the Plague were due to the powers' attempts to enforce the pre-plague status. Notable example here are the english peasant revolts of the 1380s. In Germany, it took a lot longer and some more additional grievances before this stage was reached.
But a lot of the "Bauernkriege" of the late 15th / early 16th century can be traced to the changed economical conditions after the Plague and the feudal rulers attempts to deal with that.

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius is there any evidence that the Antonine plague afflicted the German barbarians on the far side of the Rhine as much as those within Romes borders.

We don't have any sources from these regions documenting that. It is likely that the plague did spread to the germanic regions, but due to the lower and different population structure it is unlikely that this region was as affected as the more "civilized" and densly populated mediteranian regions.

To what extent were Roman garrisons on the Rhine weakened by this plague?

Enough so that any offensive strikes and expansions into trans-rhenian and -danubian areas were stopped... not enough for larger germanic intrusions into roman territory.
Of course the later may also be a result of the plague within the germanic tribes.

What prompted the emergence of a German health system.

I guess with that you mean the public health insurance systems?
Very short answer: socialism. The introduction of public health insurance - and other social insurances - was an attempt of Bismarck to diminish the influence of socialist movements in Germany. Combined with the heavy legal repercussions against socialist groups, it was part of a "carrot and stick" attempt to keep the new industrial lower classes in check.

Was it originally Germany wide or local in scope

It was Germany wide. Regional, local or profession-based system had existed before, but it was the combination of historical, political and economical causes in the final decades of the 19th century that lead to that special system.

Are the Germans today ethnically the same as those that lived here in the time of Rome.

"The time of Rome" is quite large an era, and it includes times of major population shifts as the "Great Migration".
But, yes, in a large part, the population of Germany can be traced back to the groups living here after the "Barbarian invasion"... and of course some major influences from neighboring regions.
Even if we understand that individual mobility was possible, even normal, even in the pre-modern times, whole populations tend to be rather stable, with certain exceptions.

What are the main tribes that form the root of the main German population today

That's quite diverse, and would depend on what you define as a "tribe" in modern times. Linguistics, genetics, culture, religion, history... all that can result in a completely different "tribe" makeup.
On the most general level, there is a "directional" distinction. North and south, mainly based on linguistics, and east and west, due to the recent historical events.

Is German pacifism unique to the post Cold war period or is something that reoccurs in German history. Did that pacifism result in easy conquest by more aggressive powers in history

This "German pacifism" would be post-WW2, not post-Cold-War... but, yes, it is quite unique in german and european history. It has to be understood under the knowledge of the 2. World War, the regime that lead that war, Germany's complete defeat in it as well as the new "Germanies" integration into the two Cold War alliance systems.
This was a unique occurance unparalelled in history.

As for "easy conquest by more aggressive powers"... that has rarely happened... you could even say "never".
The only situation where the german region had been "conquered" by foreign powers was during the Napoleonic era... and here you haven't a complete "conquest", but a system of both conquest, shifting alliances and dependencies. And whatever conquest happened in that era wasn't due to "german pacifism", but simply military defeat.

 

[Tom 1]

... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?

Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.

I've always been confused about how exactly Prussia was defined and how it figured into the changes of divisions of borders etc.
Do you know anything about relations between the German state and Sigismund of Hungary in the 13-1400s?

A very generous post btw, many thanks.

 

[Tom 1]

... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?

Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.

Oh, another one - the epic poem Beowulf makes reference to events both real and mythical in Germanic lands in the early middle ages, I was wondering if you are aware of any German writings from the time that coincide with any of the same events, like the conflict between Hrothgar and the Heatho bards, or that have the same kind of mix of Christian and pagan motifs?

 

[mindlight]

Wow... that's a lot, and very diverse. Let's see...

The "scapegoating" wasn't worse than anywhere else. The scope of respective persecutions was mostly due to a combination of prevalence of jewish presence and the capabilities of intervening powers.
Most fundamentally it was just a question of availability. Due to historical chance, central and southern Germany had some of the oldest and largest continuous jewish communities.
So the most violence happened where there were the most victims, combined with a inability or unwillingness of regional powers to prevent them.

Thanks for your reply

Was the targeting of the Jews to do with usury laws meaning that a lot of Christians and pagans were in debt to Jewish money lenders and killing them was an easy way out.

Was it the German church who were pushing an anti-Jewish theology in the pulpits

Or is there something deep in the German character to worry about as this happened again a lot
Does it come down to Wurst, Jesus and usury?

Are there examples of local German princes protecting their Jews

Possibly. I don't know of any sources documenting that, and most likely the escape to other countries and regions would have gone through inner-jewish circles.
Most people who tried to protect the Jews didn't do so to save individuals or for humanitarian reasons... they had economic reasons. So rather then have them "escape" to other countries, it was better to protect them locally, as a number a regional powers tried to do.
Even Casimir didn't invite the Jews because he was such a nice guy... he also wanted jewish immigrants to strengthen his economy.

So there was little sympathy for Jewish people and those who helped them were probably paid to do so in the main. It would be great if there was one example of a priest or bishop who actually followed pope Clement VI words prohibiting the anti-Semitism of the Flagellants and others.

Not in the direct aftermath. Whatever "notable revolts" resulted from the Plague were due to the powers' attempts to enforce the pre-plague status. Notable example here are the english peasant revolts of the 1380s. In Germany, it took a lot longer and some more additional grievances before this stage was reached.
But a lot of the "Bauernkriege" of the late 15th / early 16th century can be traced to the changed economical conditions after the Plague and the feudal rulers attempts to deal with that.

Was this because local princes had more control over their boundaries than in Britain where peasants could trade off Lords against each other for better wages and conditions by simply leaving them to work elsewhere?

We don't have any sources from these regions documenting that. It is likely that the plague did spread to the germanic regions, but due to the lower and different population structure it is unlikely that this region was as affected as the more "civilized" and densly populated mediteranian regions.

But no records exist to refute any speculations I might make here - cool

Enough so that any offensive strikes and expansions into trans-rhenian and -danubian areas were stopped... not enough for larger germanic intrusions into roman territory.
Of course the later may also be a result of the plague within the germanic tribes.

Incursions could be evidence that the German tribes were less infected than the Roman army which had severe manpower shortages. Did the German tribes interact enough to catch each others colds and plagues?

I guess with that you mean the public health insurance systems?
Very short answer: socialism. The introduction of public health insurance - and other social insurances - was an attempt of Bismarck to diminish the influence of socialist movements in Germany. Combined with the heavy legal repercussions against socialist groups, it was part of a "carrot and stick" attempt to keep the new industrial lower classes in check.

It was Germany wide. Regional, local or profession-based system had existed before, but it was the combination of historical, political and economical causes in the final decades of the 19th century that lead to that special system.

So the current system that devolves to Lander only dates from after WW2, before that it was a nation wide system of insurance. When did Germany get its NHS?

"The time of Rome" is quite large an era, and it includes times of major population shifts as the "Great Migration".
But, yes, in a large part, the population of Germany can be traced back to the groups living here after the "Barbarian invasion"... and of course some major influences from neighboring regions.
Even if we understand that individual mobility was possible, even normal, even in the pre-modern times, whole populations tend to be rather stable, with certain exceptions.

So the Germans that conquered Rome are actually living in France, UK, Italy, Spain and North Africa while the remainder are Russians who came in behind them?

That's quite diverse, and would depend on what you define as a "tribe" in modern times. Linguistics, genetics, culture, religion, history... all that can result in a completely different "tribe" makeup.
On the most general level, there is a "directional" distinction. North and south, mainly based on linguistics, and east and west, due to the recent historical events.

The North South divide is surely more to do with the Protestant - Catholic divide and Prussian v the rest divide.

This "German pacifism" would be post-WW2, not post-Cold-War... but, yes, it is quite unique in german and european history. It has to be understood under the knowledge of the 2. World War, the regime that lead that war, Germany's complete defeat in it as well as the new "Germanies" integration into the two Cold War alliance systems.
This was a unique occurance unparalelled in history.

As for "easy conquest by more aggressive powers"... that has rarely happened... you could even say "never".
The only situation where the german region had been "conquered" by foreign powers was during the Napoleonic era... and here you haven't a complete "conquest", but a system of both conquest, shifting alliances and dependencies. And whatever conquest happened in that era wasn't due to "german pacifism", but simply military defeat.

During the cold war attitudes towards the military were not exactly Pacifist and Weste Germany and East Germany both rearmed. The current post Cold War Pacifism uses the excuse of WW2 but it was not one used by the generations immediately after the war.

But interesting point that Germany has never actually been invaded due to its pacifism. Guess there is always a first time

 

[Freodin]

I've always been confused about how exactly Prussia was defined and how it figured into the changes of divisions of borders etc.

A very generous post btw, many thanks.

I am glad if I can help. I love history, and it hurts me to see Germany being always reduced to "Hitler" in modern common understanding outside of its own culture circle.

Prussia is a very interesting topic.
"Modern" Prussia existed because... prestige.
The origins of this state come from the Electorate of Brandenburg... an area around Berlin and todays federal state of Brandenburg.
Brandenburg itself was never very prosperous... it was mockingly called "the Empire's Blotting Sand Box". But the strategical position towards the slavic countries and its electorate title which was derived from that position gave it a political importance in the HRE. Several advantageous marriages, some more or less successful wars and victories in the alliance game added territories in other, more western parts of Germany, in the lower rhine area. Added to that were several related (literally) small countries all over the german area.
(Fun fact: my own home town, situated in Bavaria today, was once part of "Prussia")

After the catastrophic situation of the 30-years-war, Brandenburg recovered and expanded under the rule of the rather shrewd Electior Friedrich Wilhelm I, called "Der Große Kurfürst" (The Great Elector). He were progressively reformed the economy and military and was very successful in his participation in european wars and alliances.

Since 1618, the elector of Brandenburg had been duke of Prussia, as vassal of the Kingdom of Poland.
Prussia - the original area in the eastern baltics, had been the lands of the warrior monks of the Teutonic Order since the late Crusade era. It had fallen under polish suzerainity at some point, and during the Reformation been converted into a secular duchy... with a last Grandmaster of the order, a Hohenzollern, becomming its duke. His son died without direct heirs, and the duchy was inherited by the brandenburgian cousins.

After Brandenburg's successful participation in the Great Northern War, the Great Elector got the Duchy of Prussia as sovereign property, free from its vassalage to Poland.

Friedrich Wilhelm's son, Friedrich III, was not quite of his father's caliber. But there was one thing he really wanted, for several reasons... and that was to be a king.

Several princes of the HRE became kings during that time, in various ways. Friedrich August I (called "the Strong") of Saxony, another elector, had become Elected King of Poland. The elector of Hannover would inherit the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. The bavarian elector sought to secure the spanish throne for his family... unsuccessfully.
Neither of these princes would have stopped to rule over their german lands... that was still a time when a "country" was defined by the person of the ruler, not as a "nation".

August the Strong was sovereign king of Poland... and elector of Saxony, subject to the emperor. His addional land and title gave him a increased influence in the HRE, and Saxony was already a very powerful rival to neighboring Brandenburg.

Another reason for Friedrich's ambition: the Hohenzollern lands were divided, seperated, spread all over Germany. He had to struggle against his father's plans to divede up the lands and titles under his five sons, and Friedrich just barely managed to keep all the titles together. He knew that the additional title of a royal crown would provide a uniting point for his diverse possessions.

With cunnung diplomacy and support for the emperor in important wars, he finally succeded in getting the permission: he could crown himself King... but only in these sovereign duchy of his that was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire: Prussia. And he would only be king there, in this territory. Thus his official title became "King in Prussia".

From that point, it was inevitable that the more prestigious title of "Kingdom of Prussia" superceded the old Brandenburgian electorate.

And thus the "modern" Prussia came into existence.

 

[Freodin]

Do you know anything about relations between the German state and Sigismund of Hungary in the 13-1400s?

That's a little vague.

Sigismund was from the western german house of Luxemburg. His father, Karl of Bohemia, was Holy Roman Emperor as Karl IV.
Sigsimund himself was given the title of elector of Brandenburg, which his father had bought from the previous Wittelsbach owner. But when he needed money to ensure his claims to the Kingdom of Hungary, aquired by marriage, he first pledged, and then transfered the Brandenburg title to the franconian count Friedrich von Hohenzollern... ancestor of all the further Hohenzollern rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia.
(Well, in truth, it was a little more complicated, with Sigismund's brother Wenzel and his cousin Jobst being involved at some point... but medieval history is alway a bunch of familiy affairs.)

Sigismund followed his brother Wenzel (deposed) and said cousin Jobst (died under unknown circumstances) as Roman King and Holy Roman Emperor.
He tried to reform the Empire into a more centralized state... and failed at that against the elector princes' opposition. He couldn't manage to forge his eastern possesions, Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia into a larger union, but he was successful with his diplomacy in Italy, and he tried to mend the Great Schism of the church at the Council of Constance, not quite successful. Biggest problem that resulted from that was the Hussite wars he had to wage against the "heretics" in Bohemia after that... something that cost him a lot of influence and power, even if he was ultimately successful.
His last success was that he managed to get his prefered successor, his son-in-law Albrecht of Habsburg.

 

[Tom 1]

That's a little vague.

Sigismund was from the western german house of Luxemburg. His father, Karl of Bohemia, was Holy Roman Emperor as Karl IV.
Sigsimund himself was given the title of elector of Brandenburg, which his father had bought from the previous Wittelsbach owner. But when he needed money to ensure his claims to the Kingdom of Hungary, aquired by marriage, he first pledged, and then transfered the Brandenburg title to the franconian count Friedrich von Hohenzollern... ancestor of all the further Hohenzollern rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia.
(Well, in truth, it was a little more complicated, with Sigismund's brother Wenzel and his cousin Jobst being involved at some point... but medieval history is alway a bunch of familiy affairs.)

Sigismund followed his brother Wenzel (deposed) and said cousin Jobst (died under unknown circumstances) as Roman King and Holy Roman Emperor.
He tried to reform the Empire into a more centralized state... and failed at that against the elector princes' opposition. He couldn't manage to forge his eastern possesions, Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia into a larger union, but he was successful with his diplomacy in Italy, and he tried to mend the Great Schism of the church at the Council of Constance, not quite successful. Biggest problem that resulted from that was the Hussite wars he had to wage against the "heretics" in Bohemia after that... something that cost him a lot of influence and power, even if he was ultimately successful.
His last success was that he managed to get his prefered successor, his son-in-law Albrecht of Habsburg.

Yes sorry my question relates to a 2nd hand association via the order of the dragon, an order of knights the father of the character Dracula was loosely based on, Vlad the impaler, was a member of. They apparently were in thrall to Sigismund, king of Hungary it seems, but due to his name and the different alliances at the time I assumed he was German or from a German family. Not sure what his connection to Luxembourg was, or if Luxembourg existed as a sovereign state at the time.

 

[Freodin]

Thanks for your reply

Was the targeting of the Jews to do with usury laws meaning that a lot of Christians and pagans were in debt to Jewish money lenders and killing them was an easy way out.

Was it the German church who were pushing an anti-Jewish theology in the pulpits

Or is there something deep in the German character to worry about as this happened again a lot
Does it come down to Wurst, Jesus and usury?

The Jews had always been outsiders in Christian Europe. Tolerated, but not accepted. They were... convenient to have around. Profitable to use and abuse, dependent on the favour of the rulers.
In "Germany" (that is, the Holy Roman Empire), all Jews were so called "Kammerknechte" (chamber serfs) of the emperor, personally.
That provided them with a special, even elevated status. It made them highly dependent, perhaps even unfree, yes, but it made them serfs of the emperor himself. Not responsible towards any other power, community or prince.

As long as the emperor did not transfer them to these other powers. Which he did, frequently... because it was highly profitable.

A similar situation existed in other european countries... like France, England or Poland. It was in the interest of the rulers to protect the Jews... but if they wanted or needed it... they also were a directly available source of instant money that you could simply take.

For example, there were no progroms against jewish communities in England during the Plague. Because all the Jews had been already thrown out of England, their property confiscated in 1290.
Similar in France. All Jews had been exiled, the reinvited, then exiled again, reinvited... the Jewish communities in France in 1350 didn't have the size or continuity that they had in the german states.

Yes, the money the Jews had, and the usury which they (had to) do was one of the reasons why Jews were not much liked by the Christian population. Then there was the theological difference - against Christ killers - which even while not systematically preached by the clerus was always a concept that was around.
And then... they were foreign. They spoke foreign, the dressed foreign (not always by their own choice), they lived seperately (also not always by their own choice)... they were "the other".

No, it wasn't something in the "German" character. As mentioned, Jews were treated much the same in all of Christian Europe, to varying degree over time and space.

In Casimir's Poland, Jews were welcome by the king, who invited them as basically "the middle class" in his lands depopulated by eastern invaders. As an economic addition, and political counterweight against the unrule nobility and the shrinking class of serfs.
That's why he was "friendly" towards the Jews... because they gave him something he wanted.
The population though... in the more developed Polish cities, where such a "middle class" already existed, there did happen violent progroms against the new and preferred outsiders.

So, no, it's not "german character". Thank you for asking.

Are there examples of local German princes protecting their Jews

Sure. Albrecht of Austria for example protected his Jews, if not always successful. Ruprecht of the Palatinate was documented to take in fugitive Jews from the progroms in Speyer and Worms.

So there was little sympathy for Jewish people and those who helped them were probably paid to do so in the main. It would be great if there was one example of a priest or bishop who actually followed pope Clement VI words prohibiting the anti-Semitism of the Flagellants and others.

It's always difficult to defend "the other" against "your own people"... especially if you are aware who has the knife on your throat.

Was this because local princes had more control over their boundaries than in Britain where peasants could trade off Lords against each other for better wages and conditions by simply leaving them to work elsewhere?

Difficult to say... conditions varied wildly. It is even possible that no uprisings happened because the German princes had less control over their boundaries, because there was no strong central authority they could appeal to as there was in England.
A major competitor of local princes had always been the cities - the more or less free ones. And the scarcity of workers after the plague made it very difficult for anyone to excert such a control.
The revolt in England happened at least in some part exactly because the central government tried to excert such a control over the peasants.

But no records exist to refute any speculations I might make here - cool

Well... yeah. Speculate on.

Incursions could be evidence that the German tribes were less infected than the Roman army which had severe manpower shortages. Did the German tribes interact enough to catch each others colds and plagues?

Well... no. There weren't any major incursions that could be connected to the plague, and the roman manpower situation was well enough to keep the Limes for another couple of centuries.
Yes, the German tribes did interact, and trade was connecting them to the "civilized world". In fact, this was an era when several new, larger german "tribes" formed and expanded. The border wars of Marc Aurel, before and during the plage times were mainly due to this early "migration / expansion" situation.
But these were mainly caused by climatic changes and population pressure from further east. Even with the new larger tribal formations and kingdoms, the organization was not high enough to react to a short time event like the Aurelian plague... and the lack of major incursions in reaction to this situation demonstrates that.

So the current system that devolves to Lander only dates from after WW2, before that it was a nation wide system of insurance. When did Germany get its NHS?

Similar to the USA, federal law overrules local law. It has always been - and still is - a federal system, even if the execution is left to regional or private levels.

So the Germans that conquered Rome are actually living in France, UK, Italy, Spain and North Africa while the remainder are Russians who came in behind them?

Wait, what?
Well, first you have to understand the distinction that is so often blurred in the anglo-saxon cultures, and that is quite clear in German.
There are "The Germans" - "Die Germanen". This is a very large, diverse group of different people which are mostly defined by a similarity in languages and, to a lesser degree, in culture.
Then there are "The Germans" - "Die Deutschen". These are the inhabitants - originally, immigrated or incorporated - into what would be called the "nation" of Germany.

Yes, large part of "the Germans" (first group) migrated, invaded, conquered and settled the old Roman Empire. Descendants of these people live in France, the UK, Spain and North Africa. The Franks were "Germans". The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were "Germans". The Goths and Vandals were "Germans".
But they didn't move all to new lands and left their old homes empty, for "Russians" to come in and take over.
Some/many left. Some/many stayed. Some/many returned. Some/many came in from other areas.
And if there was no pressing need for whole groups to move... they just stayed, procreated, intermingled, formed communites... and "nations".

The North South divide is surely more to do with the Protestant - Catholic divide and Prussian v the rest divide.

That has some influence, but it is more a linguistic divide. The religious or political systems just followed, more or less, for various reasons, with that.

During the cold war attitudes towards the military were not exactly Pacifist and Weste Germany and East Germany both rearmed. The current post Cold War Pacifism uses the excuse of WW2 but it was not one used by the generations immediately after the war.

Large parts of the German population were pacifistic after WW2, and quite opposed to rearmament. It was seen as a political necessity, because of the "communits / imperialist" threat. But still, the official policy of both german states during the Cold War era had always been "there shall be no more war comming from German soil".
It was only after the end of the Cold War, and the reunification that this shifted to "we have to take responsibility".
No official german military has taken part in any of the armed conflicts of the Cold War Era. Since then, we have been involved in several.

But interesting point that Germany has never actually been invaded due to its pacifism. Guess there is always a first time

Interesting to see how Germans being derided as warmongering savages can turn into Germans being derided as pacifist doormats.

 

[Freodin]

Yes sorry my question relates to a 2nd hand association via the order of the dragon, an order of knights the father of the character Dracula was loosely based on, Vlad the impaler, was a member of. They apparently were in thrall to Sigismund, king of Hungary it seems, but due to his name and the different alliances at the time I assumed he was German or from a German family. Not sure was his connection to Luxembourg was, or if Luxembourg existed as a sovereign state at the time.

Ah, ok. Well, the Order of the Dragon was a knighly order similar to others that appeared in all of Europe during that period. Something about upholding the ideals of chivalry in a time when knights lost their dominance, promoting loyalty towards the liege in a time when the feudal system and its military efficiancy lost ground to organized soldiery.
Prestige and proganda.
I have no idea how Vlad Dracul figured into all that... yes, it is the most likely explanation for his name.

Sigismund was "german". Luxembourg (or Lützelburg in the old german version, meaning "little castle) was at that time a small german principality in the western border region.
The area was influenced heavily by France, and it's princes had deep connections to french nobility.
Sigismund's great-grandfather, Heinrich of Luxemburg had been elected king 1308 and been crowned as emperor in Rome in 1312.
"Hausmacht" - family power - had been a driving factor in german politics during that time. A ruling family needed enough power for themselves to excert imperial power over the other princes. Luxemburg wasn't very powerful... but that was exactly what the electors wanted: a rules that didn't have enough power to compete with them.
The kings themselves thus tried to ensure enough power for them to do exactly that.
Heinrich already had some influence ... his brother was one of the electors, as Archbishop of Trier. Heinrich himself managed to secure the Kingdom of Bohemia, a major power and another electoral vote for his son, Johann.
Heinrich died rather short into his reign, still on his coronation (and diplomacy/power demonstration) voyage to Italy. His son Johann managed to keep Bohemia, where he was rather popular, but he didn't get elected as king/emperor.
So now there we have Johann. He was german, and became bohemian. He wanted to expand his and his families influence in Italy. Failed to do that. Turned back to cash in on his good relations to France.
In fact he died fighting for France against England, in the famous Battle of Crecy... even though he was blind at that time, having lost both eyes to an illness. Tough guy that. His eldest son, Karl (originally baptized "Vaclav") was also at that battle.
Karl managed to get himself elected german king/emperor later. His younger son, Sigismund then finally got himself married into the crown of Hungary.

So, yes, he was german. And french. And bohemian. Nobility has often been very international.

 

[Tom 1]

Ah, ok. Well, the Order of the Dragon was a knighly order similar to others that appeared in all of Europe during that period. Something about upholding the ideals of chivalry in a time when knights lost their dominance, promoting loyalty towards the liege in a time when the feudal system and its military efficiancy lost ground to organized soldiery.
Prestige and proganda.
I have no idea how Vlad Dracul figured into all that... yes, it is the most likely explanation for his name.

Sigismund was "german". Luxembourg (or Lützelburg in the old german version, meaning "little castle) was at that time a small german principality in the western border region.
The area was influenced heavily by France, and it's princes had deep connections to french nobility.
Sigismund's great-grandfather, Heinrich of Luxemburg had been elected king 1308 and been crowned as emperor in Rome in 1312.
"Hausmacht" - family power - had been a driving factor in german politics during that time. A ruling family needed enough power for themselves to excert imperial power over the other princes. Luxemburg wasn't very powerful... but that was exactly what the electors wanted: a rules that didn't have enough power to compete with them.
The kings themselves thus tried to ensure enough power for them to do exactly that.
Heinrich already had some influence ... his brother was one of the electors, as Archbishop of Trier. Heinrich himself managed to secure the Kingdom of Bohemia, a major power and another electoral vote for his son, Johann.
Heinrich died rather short into his reign, still on his coronation (and diplomacy/power demonstration) voyage to Italy. His son Johann managed to keep Bohemia, where he was rather popular, but he didn't get elected as king/emperor.
So now there we have Johann. He was german, and became bohemian. He wanted to expand his and his families influence in Italy. Failed to do that. Turned back to cash in on his good relations to France.
In fact he died fighting for France against England, in the famous Battle of Crecy... even though he was blind at that time, having lost both eyes to an illness. Tough guy that. His eldest son, Karl (originally baptized "Vaclav") was also at that battle.
Karl managed to get himself elected german king/emperor later. His younger son, Sigismund then finally got himself married into the crown of Hungary.

So, yes, he was german. And french. And bohemian. Nobility has often been very international.

Thanks

 

[Tom 1]

... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?

Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.

Another rather vague question, there seems to have been a huge output of creative thought in literature, philosophy, politics etc in the 1800s in Germany, what factors led up to that? Was it largely due to Germany seeking an identity as a newly defined nation, or something of that sort? The industrial revolution appears to have taken hold in the mid 1800s but I was just wondering what spurred the intellectual output.

 

[Freodin]

Another rather vague question, there seems to have been a huge output of creative thought in literature, philosophy, politics etc in the 1800s in Germany, what factors led up to that? Was it largely due to Germany seeking an identity as a newly defined nation, or something of that sort? The industrial revolution appears to have taken hold in the mid 1800s but I was just wondering what spurred the intellectual output.

I'm not quite sure where you are comming from. Most "creative thought" has been an international affair, even more so since the "Age of Enlightenment".
Also, the "1800s" is quite a long time, and one that brought a lot of changes to "Germany".
At the beginning of this century (or about a decade earlier, if you use the historians' concept of the "Long 19th century" from 1789 to 1914), Germany was a collection of bigger, smaller or tiny states, more or less powerful, wealthy or independent.
What kind of "creative thought" could develop - and where - was mostly a question of the interests and means of the respective ruler. "Creative thinkers" tended to wander, and find a place that suited their own needs and interests.

The era of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic time and what is know in Germany as the "Wars of Liberation" were a time of political upheaval, of radically new ideas being tested, adopted or discarded. Political and social reforms were implemented even in reactionary states in order to deal with the situation. In Germany, fractured as it was, a movement especially among the intellectuals and students, started to search for this "national identity" that you mentioned.

After the Napoleonic wars came the autocratic backlash. Liberalism and national movement was suppressed in favour of restitution of monarchic power. Much of the "creative thought" in that time turned to artistic ex- and impression.

The final unification of Germany wasn't a result of democratic forces or intelectual movements. The new German Empire was an autocratic state, very much bound on controlling the forces that might challenge the powers at the top.
But still there was something that in German is called "Aufbruchsstimmung" - the atmosphere of getting ready to go forward. Optimism. Progress.
The developements of the "industrial revolution" had lead to a whole number of scientific discoveries and economical opportunities... and now with the power of a unified country behind it, both intellectual and economical "creative thinkers" had a much wider field to work in.

 

[jayem]

... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?

Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.

An arts, rather than a history question. Of the Big 7 German born composers, whose your favorite? J.S. Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, or Wagner?

 

[Freodin]

An arts, rather than a history question. Of the Big 7 German born composers, whose your favorite? J.S. Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, or Wagner?

Oh, that's difficult.
I very much like the composers of the romanticism era, so Brahms, Schumann and Medelssohn are all on my top list. Wagner is too heroic - even bombastic - for my tastes. Bach and Händel are a little too... baroque for my preference, though it's just that I like them less than not at all.

But from that list, it has to be Beethoven... I love about everything by him.

Yes, my all time favorite is still Tschaikovsky.