What were Swiss Cantons? Were they just cities with some kind of council, the leadership made up by burghers...

Only partially, at first the Swiss alpine cantons just defended their property, so did the city states, soon the city states grew in power and took surrounding turf, bought it from minor nobility and so on. When the conflict with Habsburg escalated, they took their turf, but where unable to divide it amongst them, so they made this "Gemeine Herrschaft" territory under the supervision of the Cantons, governed alternating by the cities of Zürich, Bern and Luzern. None allowed the other to incorporate the turf to their own lands. This held up until Napoleon. The Alpine cantons in turn expanded southward to northern Italy and took turf, apparently the locals Lombards where happy with that and sided with Switzerland.
Later Bern expanded into Burgundy and Savoy lands, which it partially annexed, but parts of it also made their own deal with Switzerland and joined on their own. The matter is complicated as the Swiss quarreled all the time. After the Burgundy wars, they where on brink of civil war over the booty and the new territories. In the end it was solved peacefully with the secret advice from a local eremite, and uniting the Swiss was even at that time perceived as a miracle, so that eremite is today revered as St. Niklaus von der Flüe, the patron saint of Switzerland.
German Swiss are basically pure Alamanni, western parts hold strong cultural influence of the Burgundi germanic tribes. French speaking are culturally Burgundi as well, Italians have Lombardi origins and Grisons are Italo-Celtic leftovers from Roman times in the high alpine regions.

>some of the medieval squabbles between cantons are ongoing to the modern days
Got any examples?

firstly, I want to thank everyone for creating a rare quality Veeky Forums thread.
I don't have much to add, but I am interested in the history of Swiss banking. Anyone have any details on that?

>So the Swiss national model basically allows for an extremely stable state capable of repelling foreign action, but with a tendency not to hold territory outside of its original borders?
Are we talking about the old confederacy? Then yes (modern Switzerland is a different animal)

Old Switzerland had around 60% of their male population in a milita system. Back in that day Switzerland was a belligerent place and constant feuds and quarrels made it basically mandatory for society to keep armed.

In the late 15th century the Confederacy could raise armies up to 25'000 soldiers within days if needed, and they could march them with impressive speed over difficult terrain. Most soldiers only had 3 days worth of food with them, they would be provisioned by the towns and cities of the cantons on the march. Raising and marching mass armies this fast was unheard at the time and was their prime advantage.
All soldiers where trained in unit tactics, battle tested officers where voted into office for their merits.

On the other hand, the Swiss had no unified command or political goal besides defense and plundering. They couldn't agree on how to divide conquered lands, where easily divided by particular interests and changing alliances with neighboring European powers.
Also, they lacked basic infrastructure to support an army on a campaign abroad, they had no train, next to zero cavalry forces and where basically a war band. So often they just won the battle, plundered their dead enemies, plundered the surroundings within 30 miles and then retreated home.
Switzerland had several civil wars during that time, going as far as Zurich fighting together with Habsburg against the Swiss.

Thank you user, you're doing good work in this thread. If I can abuse your knowledge a bit more, would you mind explaining how modern Switzerland differs from the old confederacy in terms of the system of governance? You mentioned earlier that the medieval system was outdated by the time of Napoleon, and that they adopted many of his imposed modernising policies at their own discretion after shaking them off initially. Is this the point that marks the transition from the old confederacy to modern Switzerland?

St. Gallen likes to get some artefacts back which Zurich plundered back in 1712, Zurich flipped them the finger because muh vae victis, St. Gallen sued them, but the federal court ruled it was out of their jurisdiction because the event predates the court. The federal museum in Zurich than made a big exhibition where the historic war booty was presented to the interested public.

Cantons are de facto sovereign states, they hold real power, they have their own laws, own taxes, own political system, and until shortly their own military forces. Everything that is not federal is decided on cantonal level. Americans will know the system.
Inter-cantonal relations can raise considerable local patriotism in Switzerland and age old alliances and animosities still show up in todays politics.

That is really cool.

Let's just hope Switzerland doesn't get flooded with shitskins, and even other European ethnicities. I'd love to preserve these cool little angry mountain gnomes as they are.

>Is this the point that marks the transition from the old confederacy to modern Switzerland?
Yes it is, like old Switzerland was trapped in time, Bern, largest and most powerful canton was ruled by a small and closed elite class of patricians. They ruled over the city and many towns and large swaths of rural territory with their Vogts (Reeves), completely dominating economical and political life. The same was true to some degree for other cities like Zurich and Luzern. The cityfolks had many privileges and the democratic participation was down to a minority of people. Meanwhile the mostly catholic mountain cantons made an ultra conservative bastion and had a harsh discipline with their subject territories. Several rebellions of marginalized lower classes occurred over time in Switzerland, an where crushed with draconian punishments.

Times changed, and after Napoleon a Swiss stilled nationalism ensued within the growing bourgeois class, old privileges of the ruling classes where abandoned new Cantons where founded from old subject lands, and Switzerland was transfered into a citizens republic. Political squabbles went, many political coups on cantonal level, insurrections and so on. 1848 Switzerland fought a remarkable civil war, it was the classic federal rights vs cantonal rights civil war the US had a bit later. It was remarkable in that they managed to get by with 86 KIA and around 500 WIA, given a total army size of over 150'000 man and modern weaponry. The federal side (mostly protestant) won over the staters (mostly catholic)

in 1856 Switzerland had a weird stand off with Prussia, Neuenburg, one of the francophone Cantons was in a weird personal union with the Kingdom of Prussia and local nobility tried a failed coup against the democratic government. This drew Switzerland at the brink of war with Germany. Nothing really happened but it help solidify the Swiss a bit on a national level.

At this time Switzerland was industrializing fast and was soon to become one of the most industrialized places in Europe, abundant water power and low costs turned Switzerland into a wealthy country. Companies like Nestle, Novartis, Roche, ABB or Credit Suisse trace their roots back to this time.
1872-1874 the Swiss changed their constitution to semi direct democracy, and since then only minor changes int he system happened. Actually since then not much at all happened in Switzerland since then. They managed to sit out two world wars right in the middle of Europe, I guess that makes them special, plus during WW2 & Cold War the population was highly militarized and indoctrinated with Swiss nationalism. At the height of the cold war, little Switzerland could raise up to 700'000 soldiers and male citizens spent a good deal of their time in military service or militia duty.
This lead to the odd combination of being highly conservative society, militant democrats with pronounced anti-fascistic and anti- communistic views. Guess that makes them special too.
Now that the cold war is over, times have changed, and while Switzerland is still a special case, it is considerably more liberal than it used to be, and the four different languages and ties to major European powers makes it a cosmopolitan Nation of mountain merchants.

So the Switzerland we see today is significantly more federal and centralised than it was formerly. Thanks user!

Another question (since there are so many worth asking): exactly how "high-ranked" are Cantons, in terms of land controlled? Are they still essentially city states dominating the surrounding countryside but bound together by a federal government, or are they more like the modern conception of a province (which may encompass several equally important cities) in that regard? You've mentioned that they have a very high degree of autonomy but I'm asking here more about the Swiss conception of what a Canton is, and how important the capitals of Cantons are.

Btw does anyone here know what the individual pieces of clothing the hornblower in the OP is wearing?

I remember hearing some apocryphal WWII quote from a Swiss diplomat telling the German ambassador (or something) that the Swiss response to Germany having double the men would be to call the militia, have them fire twice, and then send them home. Also you've mentioned multiple times that one of Switzerland's most important military characteristics was the militia system and how quickly it could raise armies. So is that still something they can do? Do they still have a culture of national service, or have easier times led them to be less handy with a rifle?

National service is still a thing, although there are non-military options now.

Gun laws are very lax by European standards and shooting for sporting and recreational purposes (often involving current and former service rifles) is still relatively common, depending on region of course.

Depends on the Canton,
Mountain cantons like Uri or Schwyz are fairly traditional entities, no real big centers, every valley for itself.
Newly cantons like Aargau or Thurgau also don't have real centers and are a mix between countryside and urban sprawl. Classic city Cantons like Bern, Zürich and Geneva have ongoing quarrels with their countryside, usually countryside is conservative and city is liberal. Since cantons and the communes of cantons are also direct democratic this leads to a nice bit of political work.
Basel went so far to divide their canton into city and country, the rural canton of Appenzell has split in two for religions reasons, Unterwalden is divided by geography into two parts. Wallis has two distinctive cultures dividing the valley, Ticino is still proud and happy to not be Italian whilst culturally being Italian. So far I haven't figured out what Solothurn really is and Glarus is basically a protestant mountain tribe. Freiburg is also interestingly, in that it has two languages but is bound together by catholic culture.

It should be addeed that on multiple occasions, after Victory in battle, the Swiss would sell all the artillery pièces and such to its previous owner.
They couldn't keep land and had no benefices in it, but they gained immense wealth periodically from battles.
In addition to that, Switzerland is a piss poor country in regards to natural ressources, no mines, no sea, ... So a lot of people just had Nothing better to earn money than to srve as mercenaries.

It should be added too, that as an independant country in the middle of great powers, they were a great destination for protestant refugees from France and elsewhere. This bringed a lot of intellectual capable men during the Religion Wars. It also shifted completely the political aspect of the relationships between protestant-majority cantons and catholics ones.

That apocryphal story is different, it was 1912 during the so called Kaiser Maneuver, a Swiss military drill where Willy 2 of Germany observed.
Allegedly Willy 2 asked a common Swiss Soldier what the 100'000 Swiss would do if he would come with 200'000 Prussians. The soldiers answered, that they would fire two shots.

There is still compulsory militia service for everyone, but since the end of the cold war it became easier to weasel out. A good part of young men don't do service at all or do non military service as compensation. Roger Federer for example apparently has a bad back that prevents him from doing physical work and hence he dodged service. Things are different in the conservative rural side, doing military service is still seen with pride.
Switzerland could still raise a sizable part of its population under arms, but the quality of the troops are questionable in todays professionalized modern wars. Also, they reduced troops and weapons significantly after the cold war.
Plus side, you get good career choices with some companies if you have officers patent in army, it is seen like a management school for certain companies. Other companies hate you for being in militia service, because you have 2 weeks of service per year on top of your normal holidays.

Switzerland has around 25% of strangers in its population, it's also the major destination of "frontaliers" (border-workers) in Europe, having more of them than all of european countries combined. They are already there, but they behave much better imo than in France and other countries because the system is a lot different.

>also shifted completely the political aspect of the relationships between protestant-majority cantons and catholics ones.
Yeah, no. You have a catholic hegemony from 1531 (second battle of Kappeln) to 1712 and the Villmergen War, where Bern and Zurich turned this into a Protestant domination of the Confederacy.

Interesting, so it really is a bit of a hodgepodge that somehow still just gets things done.

I shouldn't have used the term "canton", because they were not at this time, but at leastprotestantism rise in Geneva and Lausanne region sure changed the way of handling power over these regions.

At least it's only an apocryphal story that I was getting wrong! Anyway, thanks for the information. So you think the militia system no longer has great relevance in terms of the country's (in?)capability for war? Do you think that if tensions were higher in the future, like during the Cold War, Switzerland would be able to get its civilian population militarised quickly enough to give it the power to maintain its neutrality?

By my experience there are a surprising amount of nationalistic Swiss people of foreign origin, oftentimes south Italians, sometimes from the Balkans too.
That's not to say that Switzerland has magical integration powers or anything. A lot of 2nd generation ones are still very culturally separate. I myself think that today's immingrants are too culturally different, being primarily from places like the middle east and Eritrea (oddly effeminate, those people are) and of course filthy, disgusting kraut scum.

Whatever, it's funny to see one generation of immigrants hate on the next one.

I think the biggest issue is that modern war just isn't about getting as many dudes in foxholes as possible. Pragmatically speaking it would be more effective to get a professional army instead of handing out all those expensive rifles and ending up with a load of conscripts with outdated equipment.

Yes, it is an intricately system of particular interests that are carefully balanced and somehow work out.
Being deeply engrained Republicans they hold distinctive views on politics and history and constant exercise of political rights gives a unique culture. Basically you have to vote every 3 months, on complicated matters like national social insurance, how much taxes you'd like to pay, high value infrastructure projects or international treaties, or maybe just a credit for the local sewage plant or to build a new gym at the school. Everything has to be talked trough, carefully balanced out and then voted on. The process takes it's sweet time, but the end result usually works.

Fair enough. I'd argue that modern war isn't always about fighting a war though, and the threat of a fully armed, nationalistic population committed to guerrilla warfare against any occupying force could be a major deterrent, even to a nation that could beat Switzerland soundly in the field. Although, as you say, much of modern warfare is no longer reliant on boots on the ground. What sort of level is Switzerland's mechanisation at, and how strong is their airforce (or anti-air network)?

Also, on a related note, does Sweden still have a mercenary culture, or did that die with the UN's enforcement of anti-mercenary laws?

Very interesting. I suppose with a populace as highly educated as that of Switzerland, this sort of system makes perfect sense, ensuring that everything is generally in the interest of the populace rather than the interest of a politician, but I wonder what the minimum level of education is for this sort of direct democracy to work. On the topic of Switzerland's democracy, does it have a president or a ruling party? I understand that in most Cantons the public votes directly on most issues, and that the public has veto powers, but do they still elect representatives?

I believe the question is largely hypothetical as there is no real military threat to Switzerland to Switzerland. There is simply no real scenario that currently warrants a large army. Remember we have to do the service ourselves and pay for the gear, so currently the budget is low and numbers currently are around 140'00k. Lately we voted against new fighter jets, the wanted to buy Grippens but the people said no, because we already have FA-18 and it was too expensive.

Any scenario would require decades of tension in Europe to build up and then it is questionable if Switzerland finds the strength from around the 1930's where they went full militia mode.

By the 1970's Switzerland had a formidable force of over 600'000 soldiers with tons of weaponry and a deeply fortified country, But it was also a shit conservative society where entire cities closed at 18:30 and cultural life came to halt. In best Swiss tradition the youth revolted and politics became more liberal.

I think (or maybe hope) that the general Swiss perception of defense and militia service is still Republican based, a duty to defend the common goods and a way to ensure balance of power by giving the weapons to the population.
But as said, that aspect of society is currently not as strong, because of total lack of threat.

>based on my own idea of how an ideal state would behave.
It should be considered that this is a consequence of Switzerland's peculiar geo-strategic disposition. Without the difficult terrain that surrounds them they would have had an easier time to project military power and expand, but it would have also made it harder for them to defend themselves. States are not driven by ideals. While the surrounding nations may appear more bellicose than Switzerland, they were merely acting in their own interests just the same way. However, not being surrounded by comparable natural defences and being in competition with their neighbours they had no other choice but to grow larger and increase their power.

The point is to not replace the indigenous people who are ancestrally descended from those people. Why do you want to assimilate a bunch of poo people to dilute your native roots? Even other white ethnicities shouldn't. Mountain gnome-Jews are adorable.

>On the topic of Switzerland's democracy, does it have a president or a ruling party?
No, as republicans the Swiss loathe the idea of a President, in turn the executive is divided into / federal ministers who each hold equal powers and are bound by law to act as a collective. There is a president, with only ceremonial duties, the office changes every year according to service age of the ministers.

During wartimes, the Swiss parliament can elect a General, who is during wartime de facto dictator of Switzerland, last time this was Henry Guisan during WW2.

>I understand that in most Cantons the public votes directly on most issues, and that the public has veto powers, but do they still elect representatives?
Most cantons are shaped like mini Switzerland, they have a parliament and an executive and a judicial branch, all elected into office, they are like the office of the people, they prepare business and do the politics, but all their doings is subject to public vote, Glarus & Appenzell do it old-school with no parliament and direct democracy in citizens assembly. Many cities have their own parliaments, every village votes on its own stuff democratically and elects its own executive. So political rights are democratically executed on communal, cantonal and federal level.

In some mountains strange legal traditions have survived and are part of the last surviving laws of Germanic tradition.

A smart guy once said "If the Swiss weren't petty, they'd be great as the Romans was"
Like they had a superb republican system, and military might but where never able to project it because of their internal squabbles.

Truly and unironically fascinating. I'm amazed that a system which grants such a high degree of regional autonomy nonetheless has held together so well over the centuries. So the Cantons could theoretically follow pretty much any legal systems they wanted, but choose to all have a similar-ish direct democracy system based on culture? Or are they limited in what system they function with in accordance to some federal law or constitution? Is it a legal Swedish right that all citizens in all Cantons be represented?

Very true, and exactly why I wonder if there's something special about the Swedish system. If you take a look at the Caucasus region, it's equally mountainous and just as much at the crossroads of empires, but never developed a state nearly so strong as Switzerland, so clearly there is a factor at play other than just the terrain - although it definitely helped by allowing a small nation to defend itself from its much larger neighbours. My point is simply that the majority of political systems that provide a strong military with which to defend oneself also provide a strong military with which to conquer others, which in the Swiss case appears not to have been the case, and from this thread it seems that internal politics facilitated by their system of governance really helped in preventing them from expanding, despite their large capacity for both self-defense and offensive victory.

Good question, I think the constitution of 1872-4 would limit all non democratic privileges on cantonal level. But I am really not sure how far the autonomy goes, somehow all adopted direct democratic or semi direct democratic approach, no one ever tried a presidential system, it is somewhat not compatible with Swiss republicanism.

Also, executives in Switzerland are always of the concordance type, so ministers have to work together no matter their party affiliations, so parties have a limited influence on executive politics. Like a green party official has to work together with a conservative christian party member.

>Swedish
>Swedish

Guys?

Switzerland also is predestined as a buffer state between the major European powers and profited a lot of the differing interest of their neighbors. Playing with those interests and some world class diplomacy likely saved them more often than their armies did.

>>>>>>>>>>>Swedish

Oops, both my bad, sorry guys.

>large capacity for both self-defense and offensive victory
Fighting an offensive war is quite a bit harder than organising a homeland defence. For defensive purposes you don't need to be able to overpower the enemy, you just need to be strong enough to make conquering you more expensive than you're worth. And Switzerland, while strategically important, was not particularly wealthy. In that regard the major powers surrounding Switzerland could live well enough with Swiss neutrality (also in regard to what said). Switzerland conquering anyone was out of question though. They were powerful enough to defend themselves but they were no serious offensive threat.

Fun fact, nostalgia used to be known as 'Swiss sickness' because they were so often fighting abroad as mercenaries they would miss home

operator af

What kind of profession/role/status would the guys in the front ranks of a Swiss pike block, with full harness, have in civilian life? Were they important people and rich? If so why would important Switzers risk their lives in the most dangerous part of the neo-phalanx?

Apparently middle and upper classes, predominantly from the towns and cities. Pike duty was not especially popular with the Swiss, and most preferred to be a halberdier. Main reason was it was less heavy and expensive armor needed, less cumbersome on the march and plundering was a lot easier. So pikes where always a bit short in numbers. For this reasons it was for example amndatory for the different guilds of Zurich to bring up a specified numbers of man to a fight, and it also specifies how many pikes and archers to bring. Other towns had similar laws.

Different world view, those where different times, you where a person of influence and a leader of people only if you could show your military valor, fighting is a honor and a privilege and one of the few ways to increase your social status. Also, think republican, either you fight or you be bending the knee to some noble fuccboi soon enough, and no one else will fight for you, so you gotta do it.
Swiss commanders and officers where voted into office by their own men, they could gain large influence in society and get rich from plunder and tributes, but they would also need to lead their men into battle and command from the front. Think medieval starship troopers.

Any books to read about this? Also everything about late medieval Swiss warfare?

Most of it is in German or French, my knowledge on English authors is limited to the aforementioned "one million mercenaries" by McCormack. Also given the complexity of the politics and number of conflicts at the time it is hard to get a good overview. Society of the time is very interesting and history is in general very well documented in Switzerland, going as far that certain Cities still have complete archives dating back to medieval times.

>tf

Are you a German Switzer?

P.S. that illustration is from The Swiss at War 1300-1500 book by Osprey.

A Concise History of Switzerland by Clive Church.

Religious history of Switzerland is fun, Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, pretty much every Anabaptist group that exists today, tons of protestant sects, quasi theocratic cities, staunch catholics, inquisition, which hunts, the got it all.
1527 Huldrych Zwingli, the theological founder of the reformed churches, personally had Felix Manz, the co-founder of the Anabaptist movement publicly drowned in the river. They last executed 1614 a man for being Anabaptist.
Switzerland also was one of the places with most witch hunts in all of Europe.
Despite being deeply divided along religions, Switzerland never fought a major religious conflict and also didn't take part in the 30 years war.

Yay, I got that somewhere!

bump