What do you want to know about German history?

[Freodin]

I am a big fan of the Weimar era, especially expressionist art.

The "Golden Twenties" - yes. Sad that it had to end in this way.

Most of that is too close to me to take an objective stance on the time. I still know the tales my grandfather told me from this time. Some sparks of light, culture and freedom - and a lot of poverty and civil unrest.

That´s why I chose to "focus" on the pre-1918 times.

 

[Tini]

Yes - there are plenty of German programs on the go in South Africa around many social issues - ranging from education; sports; housing & sanitation; poverty alleviation and HIV AIDS.

As are many other countries putting money into Africa (not just SA) - Sweden; USA; UK; France; Denmark; Canada etc.

And I'm sure they are doing it into other developing nations too - Latin America; Asia.

 

[oldrooster]

Are you a student of the first world war ?

 

[Freodin]

Are you a student of the first world war ?

Yes, among other topics. My main focus is medival history though - but as I always have been interested in military history, all wars are a (more or less thorough) topic of research for me.

 

[Tini]

What is special about the Speyer Cathedral?
I visited it once.

An aside is that they had some of the first flushing toilets that still stand (I think)?

 

[oldrooster]

There was a PBS series here called "The Great War and the Shaping of the Twentieth Century". It was an excellent series. There was a part on there about Kaiser Wilhelm exchanging telegrams with Czar Nicholas during the mobilization time of August, 1914.

 

[Freodin]

What is special about the Speyer Cathedral?
I visited it once.

A wonderful piece of romanic architecture. The graves of the Salian dynasty are there. I have not been there yet, but of course I know it from pictures.

An aside is that they had some of the first flushing toilets that still stand (I think)?

That is some of the regional tidbits that escape the more general oriented historians. I myself have never heard of that.

 

[Freodin]

There was a PBS series here called "The Great War and the Shaping of the Twentieth Century". It was an excellent series. There was a part on there about Kaiser Wilhelm exchanging telegrams with Czar Nicholas during the mobilization time of August, 1914.

Yes, there is nothing as bad as a falling out in the family, is it?

The Great War brought the downfall of the continental monarchies, without offering an alternative. The destruction of the old systems as well as the old worldview of "progress" - not to mention the high bloodtoll without any meaning - was the prime cause for the totalitarian systems that came after the war.

 

[Tini]

I am lead to believe that many of the "English" troops sent by England to America in the War of Independence were actually Germans due to the German king in England at the time.

I al;so heard that the troops were English and a language barrier was present between many Officers (German) and Troops (English. Any truth in this story?

 

[wildthing]

Tini, I believe with some certainty that German (Hessian)troop were used. The country of Germany was not unitified till the 1870's. As other people have posted. I think it was the other way around ("I also heard that the troops were English and a language barrier was present between many officers (German) and troops (English)".) the officers were English and the troops were German. I think it is interesting that the English Generals were not the from best officer core. this was suppoes to be the back water of the English empire.

This has to do with the Boer War. I believe that Germany at that time had supplied (sold) the Boers with Mauser rifles. They had done the same with Spain during Spainish American War. The Germans wanted to see how there weapons would fair against the English. Some how in the back of my mind all of these little conflicts from the end the 19th century of or the begginning of the 20th century were a prelude to WWI.

 

[Freodin]

At the time of the American War of Independence, Germany was more a loose confederation of independent states than a united empire. Every small prince had the right to make his own forign policy.

Part of policy, and a way to gain money for countries that were not larger than a few dozend square miles was to sell their troops as mercenaries. The Hessians were famous for doing that, as well as their military prowess.

I don´t think they had a language problem in battle, as they came with their own officers.

And it must be noted that one of the most famous instructors of the continental army was a German as well - Von Steuben.

 

[Roman Soldier]

Why weren't the German people able to unite as a single nation until the 1800s? How did Bismark's wars help unify Germany? I've never really understood how they did.

I'm also confused by the periods where England had kings from Germany.

I've also heard that English is a "Germanic" language (like how French and Spanish are "Latin" languages). How is that so?

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Oooo, you made my day. Tell me everything you know about Brennus. Known modernly as Hermann and ocassionly rythmically as Hermann the German. Thanks

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Why weren't the German people able to unite as a single nation until the 1800s? How did Bismark's wars help unify Germany? I've never really understood how they did.

I'm also confused by the periods where England had kings from Germany.

I've also heard that English is a "Germanic" language (like how French and Spanish are "Latin" languages). How is that so?

Well, I'll take the language one. English was originally brought to England by the Anglo-Saxons about 1000 years ago, so English orginated from northern (mainland) Europe. I believe that when it was brought from there it was basically a dialect of German but has since evalved to include French, Latin and other influences. If I messed any of this up, feel free to correct me

 

[Northern Christian]

Does the government operate out of Berlin or Bonn?

 

[wildthing]

I'm also confused by the periods where England had kings from Germany.

I will try to work on your second question. This is a simple matter When the last Stuart line JamesII daughter (Anne) would have the throne of England. The problem was that (Anne) was unable to be queen, her mind was slow. Her husband Prince George of Denmark was either too drunk to shrewd to interfer with England political mess. It should be noted that Anne was also a very sick woman, her reign would last about 12 years, The replacement for the Queen would have been James II or William. Many wanted William but James II became friendly with France. It was during this time that France was trying to rule Europe. King of France was an absolute king he felt that all subject should obey him and he had little use for protestant in Europe. Of course England would support protestants. England (Duke of Marborough) would defeat the France (Bourbons and Hapsburgs) and their allies. But the problem for England would be the Death of their King leaving an unacceptable choice for King. Because Hanover was brib to side with England it was their Line, the Hanovers that would rule England. This would be the Georges. The first two Georges were stolid, stodgy, and colorless Germans; the thrid alienated many and went insane; the 4th George was the coarsest of English monarchs; and his brother, the 4th Willianm was stupid and uninteresting. England becamee attached to the Hanoverians not from affection, admiration or respect but because, except for Geo III they had little interest in running the government of England and by occupying the throne they kept out a rival line which might have threatened Protestantism and the control of Parliament.

 

[Tini]

Great thread Freodin.

Tell us a bit more about the German Boer link and any further developments up to WW1.

I know there was a lot of pro-German sympathy in SA during both WW's - especially among the Afrikaaners who felt an affinity and loyalty to them. The Ossewa Brandwag (OB) of the late 1930's was very much mirrored on the Hitlerian policies.

 

[wildthing]

Let us first look at the German-Boer link. The British Navy during the openning months of the Boer War had blockade all the ports of South Africa. There was a fear that somehow arms were entering the country. In January of 1900 three German passenger ships, the Bundersrath, the Herzog, and the General were stopped and forced into port, and then were searched. The search was fruitless, no arms were found. But the German press had a field day with this development. And this would provide the German government away to pass the Navy development bill. But this bill would not worry the Britian, for Britian's Navy was still twice the size as anybody else. Who would think that the action in the Boer War would lead to the War in Europe. (This is just the start so be patient)

 

[Freodin]

Why weren't the German people able to unite as a single nation until the 1800s? How did Bismark's wars help unify Germany? I've never really understood how they did.

The origin of this developement goes far back in time.
When the Franconian Empire was divided into the parts that would ultimately become France and Germany, the political situation in both countries was roughly the same - the powerful regional nobles controled a weak kingdom.
But from that point the situations developed differently.
In France the monarchy succeeded in becoming the focus point for national identity, mostly during the time of conflict against England.

In Germany, the kings and emperors emphazised in being successor of the Roman Emperors, heads of the Christian occident. That lead to a situation were the Kings had to hand more and more power to the nobles in order to get their support for the imperial "italian" policy.

After the fall of the Hohenstaufen family in Germany, and the following decades where there was almost no central power, a "true" electoral system was established. The electoral powers concentrated in electing kings that would not become a thread to their own power. The kings on the other hand needed to "bribe" their subjects in order to get elected. As lack of money was a constant feature in medival monarchies, these bribes were rights and powers.
In 1356, the Emperor Charles IV established a fixed system for elections and the positions, rights and duties of the various elector princes. This "constitution" gave the seven electoral provinces a power almost equal to the king - and as these provinces, in contrast to the throne, were NOT subject to constantly changing elections, they were able to accumulate their power, while the king lost more and more of his in every new election.
The other, non-electoral princes envied the power of the electorals, and tried everything to gain the same rights for themselves.
Finally, the empire fragmented into several confessional groups - a division that led to the 30-years war. The catholic emperor lost this war. In the peace treaty of 1648, the seperate states were given almost full sovereignity - something the foreign powers in the war, France and Sweden, preferred instead of a unified Germany. Germany now was a loose association of several hundert more or less large (or tiny) states, subject to an almost powerles emperor.

The French Revolution brough the end of the old Holy Roman Empire as well as the advent of the idea of "nation" as a union of people and land. The liberation wars against Napoleon were fought as "national wars" in Germany, and the people took to the idea of a unified German nation - but the princes would not give up their power and their newly won complete sovereignity. After Napoleon´s fall instead of a "german nation" a confederacy even more loose than the previous empire was established the "Deutscher Bund" (German Union).

What made the developement of a "German nation" so diificult was the problem that there where large parts under control of "German" countries that were not "German" by nation. Austria especially was not a state of "german nationality" but of many nations, Hungarian, German, Czech, Polish, Slavic...
What should happen to these lands when a "unified nation for the German people" was established?
It was over this question - a large Germany with all the non-german people in it, or a small Germany, with only the Germans - that the revolution on 1848 faltered. The revolutionists parliment in Frankfurt was not able to decide, and they debated until the princes took their power back.

Otto von Bismark, chancellor of the kingdom of Prussia, one of the most powerful german states, realized that there was only one way to solve this question, as well as the problem of the monarchs, who did not want to lose their power: the unification of Germany had to originate from the princes, not the people, and it had to happen without Austria, which would not abandom its non-german parts.

In 1866 Prussia declared war on Austria, over an almost trivial question. With an astonishing speed, the Prussians defeated the Austrians and their allies. Conditions of peace were rather simply: the German Union was disolved. Bismark did not want any problems for the future, so he was very friendly with Austria.
In the aftermath of this war, Prussia had managed to conquer or annex the last of the bigger northern german states, and formed a new union with the smaller ones: the Northern German Union. This union got a constitution that was almost the same as the later German Empire would have. Bismark was already planning.
In 1870, he managed to get France declare war on Germany. He was also able to get the last south german states as allies. In the upsurge of nationalistic euphoria after the victory, as well as through economical pressure, Bismark was able to bring these states into the Norther Union, and get his king, Willhelm I of Prussia crowned as German Emperor.

I'm also confused by the periods where England had kings from Germany.

Wildthing explained the larger story. Basically it came from tradition: the English had, at that point, three alternatives: The Jameses of Scottland - who were catholic (Buh!) - a republc (No, we just had one!) - or the Georges of Hannover. Family ties were very important for monarchs at that time - you could not just take any Smith or Jones and make him king.

The Hannoverians simply were the next in line who were protestant

I've also heard that English is a "Germanic" language (like how French and Spanish are "Latin" languages). How is that so?

English is a bit a mixture. The core is germanic - it comes from the invaion of the germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the 6th and 7th century.
But a lot of English is originated from French (and thus Latin) as well - this comes from the Norman invasion in the 11th century.

 

[Freodin]

Oooo, you made my day. Tell me everything you know about Brennus. Known modernly as Hermann and ocassionly rythmically as Hermann the German. Thanks

Brennus was a gallic chieftain of the Sennoni tribe who conquered Rome in 386 B.C.

The "Hermann" - Hermann the Chreruscian is what I think you mean.
He was a chieftain of the germanic tribe of the Cherusci, served in the roman army, where he was known as "Arminius". Later he led a german rebellion against the Roman invasion into Germania, where he defeated the Roman commander Varus.

Newer research showed that this revolt did not stop the Roman expansion into Germania completely, but was only the "beginning of the end".

Arminius was later killed by his own fellow chieftains, because they feared Arminius wanted to become a german overlord. You see, the german tradtion of particularism is an old one.