What was Germany like in the Middle Ages?

They didn't however they called places where some sort og German was spoken as Teutsche Lande form a certain point in the late medieval on.

I knew there was a french retard somewhere

>woops

Not significantly different from other European countries at the time.

That were villages compared to the cities south of the alps and across the Mediterranean. The HRE was advanced only after entering the Renaissance and were pretty behind the city states of the Italia peninsula for most of that as well.

And what you are probably forgetting is that the reason the HRE had such quick access to such ideas was because the Kaiser technically was suzerain over the various communes and cities of Lombardy, or Northern Italy, not to mention Sicily during the High Middle Ages.

Italy dragged the inhabitants north of the alps along with them. By forcing them to keep up, they helped the area grow faster then any previous time.

The Hansa, followed the Venetians and Genoans. The Teutonics followed the Templars and Hospitallers. So on and so on.

>implying Europe had countries back then

>That were villages compared to the cities south of the alps and across the Mediterranean.
Yes, still made em the biggest NORTH of the alps. And in the late medieval they became technologically leading.
Please keep the chauvinistic shit out of Veeky Forums and keep to the facts.

>That were villages compared to the cities south of the alps and across the Mediterranean.
No.
>1050 A.D
1. Regensburg
40.000
2. Rom
35.000
3. Mainz
30.000
4. Speyer
25.000
5. Köln
21.000
6. Trier
20.000
Worms
20.000
Lyon
20.000
Verona
10. Florence
15.000

If Germany wasn't an idea, how come we find people refer to it in medieval literature?

>Now they do to-day as of old time,
>where a foreign law holds sway
>(Yea, in part of our German kingdom,
>as ye oft shall have heard men say),
>Whoever might rule that country,
>'twas the law, and none thought it shame
>('Tis the truth and no lie I tell ye)
>that the elder son might claim
>The whole of his father's heirdom—
>And the younger sons must grieve,
>What was theirs in their father's lifetime,
>they perforce at his death must leave.
>Before, all was theirs in common,
>now it fell unto one alone.
>So a wise man planned in his wisdom,
>that the eldest the lands should own,
>For youth it hath many a fair gift,
>but old age knoweth grief and pain,
>And he who is poor in his old age
>an ill harvest alone doth gain.
>Kings, Counts, Dukes (and no lie I tell ye)
>the law holdeth all as one,
>And no man of them all may inherit,
>save only the eldest son

Wolfram von Eschenbach describes inheritance laws here and makes a clear distinction between "German" and "foreign"; in the Middle High German original text he even refers to "German soil", making the metaphorical connection between the land and the people that inhabit it. Similar references can be found when reading Walther von der Vogelweide for example.
Of course people had an idea that they were German. After all, people had contact with those who weren't German, e.g. Frenchmen, Italians, Bohemian Slavs, etc.; i.e. those who didn't speak their language.

Not to mention the Hanseatic trade cities. Baltic trade was enormously important throughout the middle ages and made them exceedingly rich.

But they spoke a bunch of germanic languages. German as a language didn't exist until Luther translated the Boble.

>But they spoke a bunch of germanic languages.
Which were mutually intelligible to some extent, just like people today speak dialects of the same languages.

No.
To some extent sure, but about as much as polish to russian.
And they aren't dialects in the real term. They just became known that way because the concepts of language and dialect didn't clearly exist.

Taken from Walther von der Vogelweide. What is this "German" he speaks of if it didn't exist?

You shall welcome me:
Because it is me who brings you news.
Everything you have hitherto heard
Is nothing at all: Ask me then!
But I do demand compensation.
If the meed is good
I may tell you what pleases you.
See what is offered to me.

I will bring news to German dames,
so that they will appeal to the world
even more.
This I will due without much reward.
For what should I ask from them?
They are too elegant for me.
This is why I am modest and ask for nothing
But their regards.

I have visited many lands
and always gayly seen the best ones.
But woe is me
if I were ever able to convince my heart
to like foreign
customs.
What would I get if I told lies?
German chastity is better than all the others.

From the Elbe to the Rhine
and back to Hungary,
there are the best people
I have ever seen.
If I am able to
evaluate good demeanour and looks,
by God, I would like to swear that in this country women
are better than anywhere else.

German men are well accomplished,
and the women look like angels.
He who chides them lies to himself;
otherwise I cannot fathom him.
If someone seeks virtue
and pure love,
he must come to our country: here pleasance dwells.
I would like to live here a long time!

She whom I served for a long time
and whom I will continue to serve all the time
I will not give up.
But she harms me so cruelly.
She hurts both my
heart and mind.
May God forgive her that she sins against me.
Maybe she will change her mind then.

It is a shame you cannot into German. Because German is not mentioned in the original source.

It was well intelligible enough to allow for Otto to assemble and command his German troops at the Lechfeld battle.

Would you mind to post either original texts or then state the sources please? Because translations really suck donkey dick.

The Language or culture obviously and not the nation.

He spoke to lower rank commanders and natives of his own language only, obviously. They had to learn each others accents and idioms. This is all relatively documented. It also happened in the romance speaking countries.

Is that so?

>Sie pflegents noch als mans dô pflac,
>swâ lît und welhsch gerihte lac.
>des pfliget ouch tiuscher erde ein ort:

>tiuscher erde
>welhsch gerihte

What do you think does "tiuscher erde" mean in this context if not "German soil"? And how did he differentiate that which is "tiusch" (German) from that which is "welhsch" (foreign) if it didn't exist?

Do you really think you know what you're talking about?

See . Also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ir_sult_sprechen_willekomen

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ir_sult_sprechen_willekomen
wow, even the German wiki says your wrong.

Teutsch doesn't mean the same as 'german' today. It just meant what the latins called germania.

The point is that their languages were similar enough that they came to the realisation that they were the same people. As big as the differences between medieval German dialects might have been they certainly were smaller than the differences between medieval German and medieval French, which is why medieval Germans don't refer to medieval Frenchmen as Germans. And medieval Frenchmen also had an idea that the people who lived right next to them weren't French and didn't refer to them as such.

>What do you think does "tiuscher erde" mean in this context if not "German soil"?
A place where Germanic law was in effect, as he discusses inheritance laws.

No, it does not.

Quote the line where you think it does.

The area that is today called Germany was called the Kingdom of Germany in medieval times. Regnum Teutonicorum

Just ask Frederick Barbarossa, King of Germany, King of Italy, and Roman Emperor.

The point is that they're using it as a term for their country and their people.

No, he is specifically talking about "foreign law" that is also in place on "German soil".

No, they called themselves something because old foreigners from an extinct empire called them that.
The concept of german was 'from that place', that place being a region with a name that had a translation from centuries of rivalry with that extinct empire.
They realized they had somethings in common with themselves that they didn't share with the latins nor the slavs, sure, though.
French didn't have a particularly united mentality except in the minds of the kings.
Curiosity: italians still call germans 'tedescos' which comes directly from 'teutsch'

This.

It always surprises me how little Veeky Forums knows about history.

They're using it as a geographical term. Stop stretching to fit your narrative.

>No, they called themselves something because old foreigners from an extinct empire called them that.
They called themselves that after their King was crowned Emperor of that extinct Empire and the Italians called them that during their stay in Rome.

>French didn't have a particularly united mentality except in the minds of the kings.
The French were at least aware that they were not German or Italian.

>No, he is specifically talking about "foreign law" that is also in place on "German soil".
Fun fact, that division exists until the present day, for example in the cultural line that divided the Allemanic and Burgundy principalities. That line is called the Brünig Napf Reuss line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brünig-Napf-Reuss_line
On one side of the line inheritance is as described in the poem, the oldest son inherits, on the other side it different, the youngest son inherits
Fun fact, people on both sides of the line talk some sort of a German dialect.
>It was not about nationality
>more about tradition and commonly shared values

It's not just used as a geographical term as it is also attributed to people in the text in .

>Ich wil tiuschen frouwen sagen

>Tiusche man sint wol gezogen,

What do you think does he mean by "tiusche man" or "tiuschen frouwen"? Obviously German men and German women. This is immediately apparent to anyone who's not an idiot or ideologically biased.

Germany is the Ukraine of Europe.

To me, it just means someone from 'the land'. I seriously doubt they had any real notion of nationality that came with it.

Whether you want to call it a "real" notion of nationality is a different matter. The point is that they had a name for their geographic area they were from and a name for the people who inhabited it. And to these people he's referring here. He even tells us in the poem precisely where the geographic area is. Whether that's a "real" notion of nationality would depend on what are the necessary characteristics to make it real, but it is at least 'a' notion of nationality.

Sure, I can agree with this. I can't agree with much more, though.

I don't ask for more because I've never claimed more than that.

Karl Bertau tells a different story, namely that it was an medieval /int/ style reply to Peire Vidal which praised the Provence and dissed the German culture.

Stop cherry picking you fucking waste.

In thousands, 1050 A.D.
Cordova 450
Palermo 350
Sevill 90
Salerno 50
Venice 45
Regensberg 40
Toledo 37
Rome 35
Barbastro 35
Cartagena 33
Naples 30
Mainz 30
Merida 30
Almeria 27
Granada 26
Speyer 25
Palma 25
Laon 25
London 25
Elvira 22
Cologne 21
Treier 20
Caen 20
Lyon 20
Paris 20
Tours 20
Verona 20
Worms 20
Lisbon 15
Florence 15

i.imgur.com/Inb6jay.png

And check the chart. The HRE cities keep falling down it. They only reason they were that high in 1050, is because the southern cities had been undergoing massive depopulation from the end of the Roman Empire. Venice, Florence and even PARIS stomp HRE just 150 years later. 1330, Genoa, Milan and even Naples are beating the best of the HRE. 1500 and the HRE's best is only 20th and falling. It wasn't a contender again until the 1800s. Well beyond the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Try again pleb.

>German as a language didn't exist until Luther translated the Boble.

Still makes them the biggest cities north of the Alps and bigger than for example Rome. So your story of small villages and deserted land is bullshit.
>most developed society north of the Alps.

Mistypes giving feels all over the place.

It still doesn't exist but is in a constant flow with lots of regional variety.

That's not true at all.

>it was an medieval /int/ style reply to Peire Vidal which praised the Provence and dissed the German culture.
It was. I don't even doubt that.

The point is that in order for Peire Vidal to make an /int/ post about Germans and German culture, there must be such a thing as Germans and German culture. And in order for Walther von der Vogelweide to get upset about such a post he needs to identify with that group and feel personally insulted enough to come up with such a butthurt reply.

All that indicates that there was indeed something akin to a German identity, otherwise someone wouldn't have insulted that abstract group of people and someone else wouldn't have identified with it and felt personally insulted even he was not even named in particular.

Whats with all these edgy retards going "It didn't exist dude XD"? Only a fucking autist wouldnt understand that he obviously the region that is today germany.

Sure it is, try to find the German ß (eszett) in Switzerland, they don't have it, they dropped it completely in 1906, while it is still in use in Germany. Also, the entire Orthography of German changed in 1996, constant flow...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996

Every language has orthography reforms. The fact that it has a standard proves there is no flow.

Yes, there where a Germanic culture, but by no means it was a nation. Just the biggest common term they had back at their time for their people. At present day thats around 5-6 different countries.

>The fact that it has a standard proves there is no flow.
Wait the standard changes but there is no flow? Sorry to disapoint you hombre, but my mother tongue is German, and since I am oldfag it changed quite a bit since I left school. And when you compare it to a 100-200 years old text, it changed a whole lot.
Also, Swiss and Austrians have a different orthography and vocabulary as German German.

I prefer to use the term "German identity". The people had an idea that they were German, that there were others like them who were German and that there were people who weren't German.

Whether it qualifies to be called a "nation" depends on how one defines the latter. There certainly was no nationalistic imperative in the sense of the people having the ambition to gather all of them in a nation state and govern themselves, however, this didn't really exist anywhere else at that time either.

A loose federation of secular Germanised states

Fuck, different German Newspapers use their own brand of German orthography because they do not accept the official "standard"
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausorthographie

If there, is a fixed standard in a point in time, how can you claim continuous flow and change? Most of the recent changes just included small ways of how to write words with the same pronunciation since the 18th century.
But yes different accents all over the place, like in every european country.

>I prefer to use the term "German identity". The people had an idea that they were German, that there were others like them who were German and that there were people who weren't German.
Yes, nobody doubted that, common language, common laws, common traditions. Yet still, no one had a problem belonging to a a guy who was also had lands in northern Italy or southern France. The cultural identity simply wasn't that a big thing back then.

>no one had a problem belonging to a a guy who was also had lands in northern Italy or southern France.
This wasn't a problem elsewhere either. Nobility was considered a completely different kind of people.

Negrito, you do know that 300 year old German text is hard to read and understand for a present day German
>thats what we call change over time
And Swiss and Austrians use different vocabulary and grammar in their official school taught German?
>now thats we call local variability

your argument is moot, get lost.

Interesting question, are the Swiss, which had a non monarchy (if it was a Democracy is up to debatte) going, the first Nation state of Europe?
Like they had a state, no king, untied by common goals and some sort of common identity that made them even go to war with the HRE in 1499.

If medieval switzerland was the same as it is now, there was no "common identity", only common goals, which is why i have no issue saying switzerland is not even today a nation state. And local nobilities still largely run the scene in many places

>are the Swiss, which had a non monarchy (if it was a Democracy is up to debatte) going, the first Nation state of Europe?
I was actually thinking about that very example right while I wrote that paragraph of it not happening elsewhere either. Arguably some micro-nations like San Marino might also qualify for it.

However, I would argue that it is a different kind of nationalism than we've seen in the 19th and 20th century.

A nation is usually defined through ethnicity or culture, usually a mixture of both, with a very strong emphasis on a common language. Switzerland harbours three, and they're regionally separated. Do they form a cohesive nation or more an alliance of necessity, imposed on them by outside aggression? I'm not too certain about that, and the existence of Switzerland in particular was also quite troublesome to some nationalists who wanted all Frenchmen or Germans to unify in their respective greater nations. The idea of a bunch of people sticking together with what they perceived as foreign nationals and making up their own country was deeply repulsive to them. In early 20th century Germany the term "Verschweizerung" (Swissification) had been in use, which described the dilution of national awareness within a group of people, supposedly making them more susceptible to Jewish influence.

The old Swiss (8 cantons and 13 cantons) had a common language, high alemanic Swiss German.
French and Italian Cantons only where accepted in the 19th century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Cantons

>A nation is usually defined through ethnicity or culture, usually a mixture of both, with a very strong emphasis on a common language
Not necessarly, that's not where it comes from. The sense of national identity comes from the perception of common fate: usually that entails common language, but Switzerland is an exception. That exception is the proof language/culture is irrelevant to nation-building.

Their geographical circunstances demanded them to form a nationality.

Swiss people are known as a cohesive bunch in Europe for centuries, they used to be fearsome warriors and paid mercenaires in numerous european wars.

pas d'argent, pas de suisse, it's what they say.

Again, Switzerland was uniformly German speaking, and a political entity since the late 13th century, de facto independent since 1499 and de jure from 1648 to 1798.
So your multi-ethnic argument does not count for this time period.

my argument is about nation, not about state. how can you confuse the two?

this is what user said:
>A nation is usually defined through ethnicity or culture, usually a mixture of both, with a very strong emphasis on a common language.

not in the case of the swiss, I said. their nation building and sense of nationality has been grooming for centuries, due to geographical circuntances.

Learn the distinction between Nation and State, and then you can make a decent post. Surely.