Very interesting post. I was not aware of this work.
Just one critique: “…from the powerful, courtly cultural influences coming especially from Germany.”
There will not be a Germany until 1870 and nothing resembling a German identity until 1500, even then its about a language group. There are a plethora of German speaking principalities.
I use the phrase “German speaking regions” in the Middle Ages, but even then, which dialect? Low or High German?
There are English and French identities in the Middle Ages, but medieval German speaking ppl are way behind in this regard.
I’m not sure this is right. See the Regnum Teutonicorum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany). Obviously the word being used around this time is not “Germany” but various forms of “Teuton-“ and later “Alemann-“, but it seems pretty clear there was a Kingdom of Germany during Saxo’s time.
This is not a good Wikipedia article. Its not even coherent. And it is a Wikipedia article, not a source. There is no corresponding article in German language at wikipedia.de because a “German Kingdom” in the Middle Ages is nonsense and did not exist. The sources cited here must be cherry picked and likely dont really say what they are alleged to say. Quote: The Kingdom of Germany or German Kingdom…was the mostly Germanic language-speaking East Frankish kingdom…
This is not even coherent.
The Franks and the Germans are not synonymous. There were many various German speaking tribes, Franks, Bavarians, Alemanni, Swabians, different Saxons, Friesians, Prussians, Hessians. Mecklenburgers, Brandenburgers etc its endless. Are these then not “Germans” when the Franks are the “German Kingdom” according to Wikipedia? None of any of this makes sense or follows the laws of categories.
The French call all Germans today Alemanni, Allemagne, but its a fallacy of equivocation. Allemani were just one tribe speaking their own dialect & with their own culture and identity. But the French falsely use the term to apply to all German speaking people, or to present day GDR? This article does the same thing. It equates the Franks with “Germans” which is not helpful.
There will be no nation states until the Peace of Westfalia 1648.
This Wiki article wants to equate the Franks with the “Germans” when they were just one tribe and it was also present in present day France, the Low Countries (present day Netherlands and Begium) and Italy. The article conflates a fictional “German Kingsdom” w the Holy Roman Empire, which is not Germany. It disregards different time periods, Carolingians vs Ottonians, Staufers etc. The emperors the article mentions like Friedrich I & II lived in Italy and administered in Latin, rarely went to present day “Germany”.
There is no use of the word deutsch diutsch tiutsch meaning anything but a language group until the modern period. It never refers to a people or place a single time in the Middle Ages. If i am wrong i would love to know what example I missed.
Regnum Teutonicum was used interchangeably with Regnum Francorum Orientalium or other formulations. Interpreting “German” into the occasion use of Teutonicum here is very sloppy and is reading something into it which is not there.
Bede refers to an English people in the Early Middle Ages. There is nothing like this referring to medieval German people as a nation or people or having an identity as such or German places.
There are literally zero references to German people or territory until the Early Modern and even then its mostly refers to the language. Its because these did not exist. (I have a Masters in German Literature). Germany first unifies as a nation state very late, 1870.
Even today Swabians have a Swabian identity. There are still principalities with princes which have their own identity. My advisor lives in one: Waldeck in Hesse.
I have done some reading on “nation building” or development among German speaking people in the Early Modern around 1500. Its an emerging innovation then but it doesn’t become realized for many centuries. German speaking people identify with their region, city, principality until the 1800s. Maximillian I puts the word “deutsch” as an adjective to the Holy Roman Empire, but it describes people speaking German languages, not a homogeneous people or nation.
If i was to summarize the Wikipedia article: there was an empire (HRE) and a Kingdom (the Franks) and even though these overlap, they ruled over places where people spoke German languages so we will call it a “German Kingdom” to the exclusion of all the other german speaking tribes and regions who were not the “German Kingdom” though. Its balderdash.
The HRE was a very loose association and nothing like the monolith the article makes it out to have been.
Why not just call the Franks the Franks instead of the “German Kingdom”? Its beyond imprecise and it is presentism.
Very interesting post. I was not aware of this work.
Just one critique: “…from the powerful, courtly cultural influences coming especially from Germany.”
There will not be a Germany until 1870 and nothing resembling a German identity until 1500, even then its about a language group. There are a plethora of German speaking principalities.
I use the phrase “German speaking regions” in the Middle Ages, but even then, which dialect? Low or High German?
There are English and French identities in the Middle Ages, but medieval German speaking ppl are way behind in this regard.
I’m not sure this is right. See the Regnum Teutonicorum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany). Obviously the word being used around this time is not “Germany” but various forms of “Teuton-“ and later “Alemann-“, but it seems pretty clear there was a Kingdom of Germany during Saxo’s time.
This is not a good Wikipedia article. Its not even coherent. And it is a Wikipedia article, not a source. There is no corresponding article in German language at wikipedia.de because a “German Kingdom” in the Middle Ages is nonsense and did not exist. The sources cited here must be cherry picked and likely dont really say what they are alleged to say. Quote: The Kingdom of Germany or German Kingdom…was the mostly Germanic language-speaking East Frankish kingdom…
This is not even coherent.
The Franks and the Germans are not synonymous. There were many various German speaking tribes, Franks, Bavarians, Alemanni, Swabians, different Saxons, Friesians, Prussians, Hessians. Mecklenburgers, Brandenburgers etc its endless. Are these then not “Germans” when the Franks are the “German Kingdom” according to Wikipedia? None of any of this makes sense or follows the laws of categories.
The French call all Germans today Alemanni, Allemagne, but its a fallacy of equivocation. Allemani were just one tribe speaking their own dialect & with their own culture and identity. But the French falsely use the term to apply to all German speaking people, or to present day GDR? This article does the same thing. It equates the Franks with “Germans” which is not helpful.
There will be no nation states until the Peace of Westfalia 1648.
This Wiki article wants to equate the Franks with the “Germans” when they were just one tribe and it was also present in present day France, the Low Countries (present day Netherlands and Begium) and Italy. The article conflates a fictional “German Kingsdom” w the Holy Roman Empire, which is not Germany. It disregards different time periods, Carolingians vs Ottonians, Staufers etc. The emperors the article mentions like Friedrich I & II lived in Italy and administered in Latin, rarely went to present day “Germany”.
There is no use of the word deutsch diutsch tiutsch meaning anything but a language group until the modern period. It never refers to a people or place a single time in the Middle Ages. If i am wrong i would love to know what example I missed.
Regnum Teutonicum was used interchangeably with Regnum Francorum Orientalium or other formulations. Interpreting “German” into the occasion use of Teutonicum here is very sloppy and is reading something into it which is not there.
Bede refers to an English people in the Early Middle Ages. There is nothing like this referring to medieval German people as a nation or people or having an identity as such or German places.
There are literally zero references to German people or territory until the Early Modern and even then its mostly refers to the language. Its because these did not exist. (I have a Masters in German Literature). Germany first unifies as a nation state very late, 1870.
Even today Swabians have a Swabian identity. There are still principalities with princes which have their own identity. My advisor lives in one: Waldeck in Hesse.
I have done some reading on “nation building” or development among German speaking people in the Early Modern around 1500. Its an emerging innovation then but it doesn’t become realized for many centuries. German speaking people identify with their region, city, principality until the 1800s. Maximillian I puts the word “deutsch” as an adjective to the Holy Roman Empire, but it describes people speaking German languages, not a homogeneous people or nation.
If i was to summarize the Wikipedia article: there was an empire (HRE) and a Kingdom (the Franks) and even though these overlap, they ruled over places where people spoke German languages so we will call it a “German Kingdom” to the exclusion of all the other german speaking tribes and regions who were not the “German Kingdom” though. Its balderdash.
The HRE was a very loose association and nothing like the monolith the article makes it out to have been.
Why not just call the Franks the Franks instead of the “German Kingdom”? Its beyond imprecise and it is presentism.