German History

The Merovingian dynasty lost power during the 7th century, and Charles Martell became the first king of the Carolingian dynasty (although of course it was still the Frankish Kingdom, he was a Frankish nobleman), Martell beat the muslims at Tours, stopping the advance across Europe. After Martell came Pepin and as devout christians, the Franks tried there best to convert their Germanic neighbours as much as they could. As was custom, he split the Kingdom (that by now covered most of France, the Netherlands and parts of southern Germany) between his two sons, Charlemagne (well still Charles) and Carloman. Technically it was still one kingdom, with two kings, each having their own area of control (a bit like the triumvirate). Carloman died, and Charles took control of the entire realm, more or less by force. After securing his power, he got the blessing of the pope, and forcefully annexed northern Italy, controlled by the Lombards (although, of course they were also christian). Pretty much the whole time after that he was BTFOing the Ummayads in Spain, or rushing north, to slaughter and then convert the still pagan Saxons.
should I continue?

Nope, just a student.

If you wouldn't mind. I'm fairly well versed in French/Frankis history but it's a lovely refresher.

why don't you study in one of your superior universities?

>superior universities
Germany has plenty of fantastic unis and they're tuition free to boot.

>Charlemagne
You know he's a French king right? (you even spelled it in French...)

WE

frankish =/= french

Charlemagne is a vital part of the story of Germany considering he ruled most of it and laid the grounds for wat would eventually become the HRE. Plus, the Franks were Germanic, coming from near Belgium/Netherlands if I remember correctly.

Also, vielen Dank.

Charlemagne went on a few more campgains against various other people, and then around 800 helped out the pope, and in turn got crowned Roman Emporer. He know had an Empire consisting of France, the low countries, large parts of modern day Germany and north Italy. He christianized where ever he could and also supported commerce, literacy (eventhough he was apparently illiterate himself) and scribes, pretty much ending the "Dark Ages". After his son Louis died he left the empire to his three sons, who then split the empire into 3 distinct kingdoms (I think none could get the upper hand), of which the eastern part became the core of the HRE and Germany. Louis the German became it's ruler. The Eastern part was fairly fractured and less developed, constantly facing the threat of Magyar incursions and other pagan raids.

How dare you pretend that West Germany should count as a nation.

This changed in the 1st half of the 10th century, under the rule of Otto (the Great). While the Magyars (Hungarians, pretty much steppe niggers) were payed off for a while he reformed the military, and trained his soldiers in horsemanship, creating a large army of "Panzerreiter" basically armoured cavalry, that would later become knights. Otto delivered the Magyars a crushing blow in 955 at Lechfeld (showing that it really isn't that hard to beat mounted archers). After that he went to the aid of the pope, who was having trouble with the Northern Italians, mucked around in various conflicts and took lands, that were formerly part of Lothringia. For his troubles he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, becoming the founder of the HRE.

Now starts the wonderful clusterfuck that is the history of the HRE, with the main axis of struggles being between the Emperor and the Pope, the king of Germany and the Italian cities, the various Nobles fighting for the position of the king/emperor or electorates.

My internet is being a bitch right now, have to see if I can fix it.

He was Dutch

>various reasons, the Roman Empire (W)
Why didnt you said it fell because germanics invaded?

I thought it fell because of Christian decadency and the Germancis did just dispose the corps, no?

I wonder... most germanics believe rome.fell because of christianity?

That is very stupid , they were in decline but that doesnt mean they will fall, they could have recovered from that but germanics chimped.out and destroyed and raped everything

>I wonder... most germanics believe rome.fell because of christianity?
I wonder, are there still people that think something like "Germanics" exist in the 21st century? Whats this? some new /pol/ meme?

fugg, the HRE is where my knowledge is really lacking. I know abit about the power struggles between Prussia and Austria along with some major wars,but not much else.
Much obliged for your work so far.

Please don't tell me you're this retard from the DomRep?

>I know abit about the power struggles between Prussia and Austria
Then you know nothing, modern HRE is irrelevant, medieval HRE is everything.

I know a little something about social history in the medieval HRE, like how much a mug of beer was worth, or how much the executioner earned for his services. Or how Cologne organized his brothels in the 15th century.
Not sure if that helps, but to me it this small colourful details are more fun than just the big history.

If there's anything you'd think is important I'd be happy to read whatever it is you have to tell.
Please feel free to share what you know! I love the little things in history that help one to shape their understanding of how things worked on every level.

For anyone that considers contributing or has contributed and I don't immediately respond, I give you my apologies for not consistently posting responses. I'm doing a bunch of stuff at once and it's past 2 where I'm at, but I'm lurking when I can.

I think foundation to 1250 is the most important time of the HRE because at that time it really was the heart of Europe. Late medieval period is important but not as glorious. Early modern is turbulent and often bloody.

I wouldn't know any English books though, I heard other anons recommend Peter Wilson " Heart of Europe" often. I read many specialized books on social history of the HRE, I'm especially interested in the outsiders of society, criminal justice, proto-industrial history and how a medieval city state worked.

You sound like you've done you're research. I won't lie in that it's hard to find the time to read things unrelated to my studies, but definitely noted. If you'd care to share some tidbits you particularly enjoy then this user would appreciate it.

its stupid to say germans attacked the roman empire, german is a modern identity and dont even cover all germanic people

the one that make anti german protestant threads?

No

i havent even see him or any of this threads

I liked the role of the executioner. Now society at the time was very hierarchical and depending on status. Executioner was a dishonest trade, but a lucrative one as you practically was high nobility amongst the dishonest people, of which they where many. Latrine diggers, dog catchers, all kind of errant artists and musicians, several classes of police officers, grave diggers, whores, knackers and so on. Now simple contact with a dishonest person could endanger your status and so work with the criminals and lower classes was left to the dishonest. So naturally they made the only dishonest man that had a job with the town the boss, the executioner. first order of business, whore monger, in charge for the city brothel. he could delegate the job to whoever, which he usually did for a fine sum. It went on and on, in the end Executioners where top 10% percentile in direct income and had sizeable side incomes.
Now the executioner had 3 official jobs a) executing people, b) torturing people (which was pretty strict under the CCC) and healing and nurturing said torture victims back to health. Executioners families (the job and dishonest status was hereditary) developed into the best wound medics at the time because the practise and lots of contacts with academics of the time who always had use for fresh corpses.

Getting late, I'll write something tomorrow

Sorry then mate, I was a bit paranoid.

Bump

Ok, lets talk about historic law in the HRE then.
In the early modern epoche criminal law was codified first, actually there were older Germanic laws that had some sections about criminal justice, but it was always bits and pieces.

1507 the „Constitutio Criminalis Bambergensis“ is written, and codifies systematically for the first time criminal justice. It names the crimes, the punishments for this crimes but the legal means allowed for a process like the different forms of torture.
The demand for such a standard is high, most towns handle criminal justice by custom and the different standards lead to problems. Also many officials of the myriad of towns and territories want to have an efficient justice based on the latest standards, so the CCB becomes widely used.

1532, the "Constitutio Criminalis Carolina", written by Emperor Karl V is accepted as criminal code for the empire. it is largely based on the CCB and becomes the standard in the HRE. Meant to standardize the legal practises around the Empire and make criminal justice more humane it has its pro and cons. On the one side trials get fairer and the use of torture is reglemented, on the other hand minor crimes like Theft now have death sentences quasi mandatory.

Now how did criminal justice work? Difficult because of the myriad of territories end entities involved, A city would have their own system of justice, if the city is owned by a bishop then it gets more problematic (prohibition of killing for the clergy) and if the turf is Feudal then we get some basic Germanic tribal laws from the migration age.

Now this didn't fit in well in early modern post Plague Europe, commerce was booming, cities and countries were competing with each others and "lawless" territories would get lots of attention from their neighbours. Despite the blatant abuse that comes with no division of powers and the use of torture, most entities tried to provide a fair justice and to keep criminality down.

Jails and dungeons were really just holding tanks, and even if time spent or torture endured would be taken into account for the final sentence they were not meant as a punishment per see. the order of punishments went like this

Admonishment (minor offences), they literally would call you to the office and tell you that you behaved like an asshole and should change your ways
Written admonishment, same same, just now you have it written that you behaved like an asshole
Fine, the most common punishment
Work house or thread mill, mostly for habitual offenders of young age
Public shaming, like pillory or have shaming stones or boards chained to you.

Until her eit is low justice and all good fun.

it is good fun till here and it is called low justice, now we enter high justice or blood justice, because punishments would literally bloody you. Also, in high justice torture is a legal mean of investigations. Also most sentences in this catalogue will make you lose your honors and hence condemn you and your offspring to the shitty jobs mentioned before, you were cast out of society.
Flogging and Flogging out of town were the most common of the so called "Leibstrafen" or body punishments. Hobo's, whores, and many more non locals with small sentences were just flogged out of town. locals, especially dishonest classes could also be flogged for medium offences.
Amputations, Blasphemics would lose a tongue, thieves often a hand, oath breakers would have their oath fingers cut off, lewd women could lose their noses and ears, rapists their penis.
Executions. There is two types of executions, being beheaded by sword, which is honourable and makes your body eligible for a Christian burial on consecrated ground and everything else, which means your body will either be destroyed in the process or left out for crow bait as an additional shaming.

Hanging, for thievery mostly, they let you hag for months untill the body has rotten away and the bones would be thrown into a pit under the gallows
Burying alive was the traditional sentence for infanticide and reserved for women, at some time this was changed into drowning.
Burning alive, for heretics, counterfeiters and incest and all "sins against nature". Most people were not burnt alive but strangled beforehand and just their body cremated, which was seen as terrible since no resurrection.
Breaking at the wheel, for the wicked, murderers and serial rapists and other violent crimes
Quartering by horses, for regicide and treason

Often sentences were lowered to beheading, especially for Citizens, women, repenting sinner, youths and others. Often the big show of a torture execution was not wanted and only practices when demanded so by the public for heinous crimes.

In that case such an execution was a big and celebrated event, people would come from near and far, market booths would sell food and drinks, a scaffold would be constructed so the crowd could see the spectacle. Executioners were judged by their skills, a botched beheading of a prominent criminal would be catastrophic. Towns executioners became famous and synonymous with efficient justice. For example Nuremberg's "Master Franz" was a legend in the trade with over 400 executions and even if people far away wouldn't know much about Nuremberg, they would know they are rich and powerful and that Master Franz gives the justice. Other towns would often try to hire such a master to improve their legal sytem.

>free

It's one of those great tricks that people fall for, that silly idea that if money is never allowed to be handed over to you first before being taken, that you've spent nothing.

Can't you be an ancap somewhere else?

Once I get home I'll continue with my brief outline of German history

Dankeschön

Alright.
Since the coronation of Otto the Great, the King of Germany/Emperor was considerd the defender of the Church of Rome, at the same time he was also the head of the Imperial church, allowing him to appoint bishop's or other church functionaries (that had massive lands and power, not only religious authority), these would of course be loyal to the crown and not the church. In the 11th century a reform movement started, primarily directed against simony (bribery to gain church titles) and breach of celibacy (not just fucking, but taking wives), while the kings were happy to fight those practices, the reform also went against the aforementioned practice of a lay-person (the king/emperor) giving out ecclesiastical titles (Investiture). This led to the Investiture Controversy (Investiturstreit). Unlike the chruch-reform, this wasn't a "grassroots"-movement, but a driect confrontation between the pope and the German monarch. The pope wanted to retain his power in questions of church and curb the power of the king as head of the Imperial church, while the king needed to have influence on the bishops that held vast amounts of power in secular matters. It culminated in pope Gregor VII excommunicating king Henry IV, the latter had denounced the pope and called for his replacement. In this "earth-shaking" conflict it turned out that the word of pope had more power, than that of the king. In a turn of events, Henry IV didn't back down from his position through compromise and political power loss, instead he did a "walk of penance" (Bußgang, no real translation) to the pope residing at Canossa. In the middle of winter and barefooted, clothed in a cloth sack, the pope was enable to send away a penant sinner, and had to absolve, taking him back into the fold of christianity, without the king giving any concessions. The Investiture conflict ended with the Concordate of Worms, giving the popa and king equal power in the matter of Investiture.

It is free for the student because they usually don't pay taxes. It's really not that hard to understand

do you speak german?

How did you get into it and what city?

I'd love to study in Berlin or Hamburg

>He dosn`t want to know about best war

I should probably clarify my usage of king/emperor so inconsistently. In the high MA (until about 1254) the king of Germany was king of the lands of the Franks, Saxons, Swabians and Bavarians or the realm of the "theodisc" (th->d, eo->eu, disc->tsch: deutsch). He in theory was elected, according to Germanic tradition, by all the nobles of the parts of the realm. In practice the election (or better to say confirmation) of the king was quasi-hereditary, and according to the strengths of various dynasties. The proposed king would generally have to put down rebellious nobles or bribe others to secure loyalty and support. He would then be elected/proclaimed by the "Reichsstände"of the Reichstag (Imperial Diet), a large group of the most powerful nobles, bishops, and later also the free (Imperial) cities. Once crowned, the king would want to be coronated emperor. This usually consisted of him taking an army across the alps, and securing "Reichsitalien", the north Italian regions that were nominally part of the HRE. Of course the rich Italian cities didn't usually take to kindly to German rule and were often in rebellion. If the king defeated the Italian rebels (or at least defeated the ones that the pope didn't like), he would be crowned rex romanum, thus becoming the (Holy) Roman Emperor, and king of Rome and Germany (this is where the we wuzzing comes from, they considerd themselves the inheritors of the Roman emperors, via Charlemagne)

Now let's get to the dynastic strugggles and infighting. After the childless death of Henry V the line of the Salian-dynasty (that had replaced the Ottonian dynasty of Otto the great) died out. This resulted in a civil war and ongoing Dynastic rivalry between the Swabian dukes of the Staufer (Hohenstaufen, Ghibellines) and the Saxon (or allied with the Saxons) Welfen (Guelphs). The first civil war sort of ended with the election of Friedrich I "Barbarossa", the son of both Staufer (m) and Welfer (f). Is anybody actually reading this? Friedrich Barbarossa was probably one of the most glorious and strongest Emperors and ruled at the height of the HRE, he tried determing the pope, pissed off the other monarchs in Europe by his power, and constantly fought against the Italian states (in the end he couldn't completely break them and had to concede to the installment of the pope he didn't back.) He tried to leed the 3rd crusade with Richard and Phillip, sadly drowning in a river on the way, with the German contigent of the crusade dispersing.

>Lead the mightiest army the christian world has ever assembled to take back the holy land from the heathens
>Die in a river
JUST

and his soldiers commit suicide or even convert to islam

not before wrecking the Seljuks and putting the fear of god into them though.

Yes, but not incredibly well.
You just apply, I'd recommend looking on uni-assist.de or mastersportal.eu for different programs. Although most English only programs are focused around finance, business, or economics type fields, I've seen ones in the fields of politics, history, and others too. Those cities in particular defenitely offer masters programs in a decent variety of fields. Finding a bachelors that isn't in German is quite difficult though, unless you want to do English or American Studies.
You just need to apply through uni-assist.de (which as said, covers most programs in Germany) or directly to the university (which will make finding it a bit trickier, but mastersportal.eu will have most of those). I'm currently in Frankfurt, which isn't a bad choice once you get to know the place.
If you've any further questions then feel free to ask.
Ich liebe dich, user.

>Is anybody actually reading this?
yes

Ah, I made a mistake, by confusing Hohenstaufen and the Staufer, with Staufen im Breisgau (which then was part of Swabia). The Welfen were the Swabian dukes and inherited Saxony, the Staufer and Friedrich Barborassa were Franconian.
I wnat to go into detail on the conflict between the Welfen and Staufer. After the end of the first period of civil war and before the coronation of Friedrich B., Swabia was in the hands of young Henry the Lion. He had also inherited parts of Saxony around Braunschweig from his mother (the daughter Henry IV of the Investiture conflict). Very ruthlessly he acquired any lands he could around Braunschweig, with full support of Friedrich B. After the coronation and since Henry the Lion had supported FB, the latter granted him lands of Bavaria. This meant that Henry controlled a large part of the north and the south, with staufer Franconcia in the middle. Henry the Lion was quite power hungry and when FB went south to muck around in Italy and get the crown, he wanted something in return. Because they were both such strong personalities, FB didn't cave in, leading to HtL not supporting the campaign. The split between the cousins, resulted in FB gathering all of the many enemies of HtL together and forcing him to abdicate much of his lands.
cont.

Besides building up the city of Braunschweig (where parts of my family came from) into a grandiose medieval city (although much was destroyed during WWII), Henry the Lion also supported the eastern expansion. He encouraged farmers and settlers to settle and to make arable land out of the eastern fringes of his realm. The Polish (and later Lithuanian) rulers very much encouraged this, since the east was sparsely populated and the western farmers brought along advanced methods of agriculture, clearing and swamp draining. This is one of the few examples of "positive" "colonisation", since both sides profited from the arrangements, and anyone christian could become part of these farming communities or cities.
This expansion into the east (Ostsiedlung) of course had many implications to the course of history, many German communities could be found throughout the east, and later on, many cities were founded by Germans and under German city law, since this was fairly advanced and cities usualy only answered to the highest authority (like the emperor in the case of free and/or imperial cities) and were very lucrative for the varios rulers in the east.

bump for a quality thread

if the thread is still up, I'll continue later

It is still up, continue!

Just play crusader kings 2 and you get all this info in a nice we'll aged interface.

After Friedrich Barborossa's death, his son Henry VI took the throne and through marriage gained the lands of Sicily and parts of South Italy. He died, while his son and designated successor was only 3 years old. He would later be known as Friedrich 2.0: Sicilian boogaloo, the possibly greatest Holy Roman Emperor. Of course the feud between the Welfen and Staufer wasn't over, and the many enemies of the Staufer (including the pope) didn't want that amount of power in one person's hand (Friedrich II had direct claims to Sicily, Reichsitalien, Franconia and other parts of the realm). After 10 years of civil war, lead by two kings, the brother of FB, Phillip of Swabia and Otto IV of the Welfen (later crowned emperor, albeit briefly), and the death of his uncle, Friedrich left his place of birth and beloved home of Sicily, to be elected king of Germany (after defeating Otto IV, with the help of the French king).
An important aspect of this conflict, is that most European monarchs were in the process of binding more power to themselves (becoming more "absolute" rulers), but in the HRE, the feuding Welfen and Staufer had to make concessions towards the high nobility, in order to gain their support, strengthening their position and greatly contributing to the federal and decentralized nature of Germany/HRE/whatever you want to call that certain entity in central Europe.

I'm going to continue, but I'm suprised in the lack of questioning and criticism on my posts, I know this an usual topic for Veeky Forums, since it's German history, that's not about the world wars, but I'm not a historian, just someone who loves history and loves his country, so I love talking about it. I'd be happy for people to contribute, criticize or ask questions.

There are many lurkers, but you seem to have such a great grasp of an understudied period of history that I think there isn't much of anyone to contest what you write.

It isn't until the late 15th century unofficially and then officially in 1512 at the diet of worms that it became the heilige romanische reich deutscher Nation, right?

Just wondering if that would mark the point where you could call the HRE a German nation or if it came earlier

>an understudied period of history
The problem isn't that it's understudied, Germany has produced some of the most influential people in the field of History (e.g. Schliemann), a lot of what I write, I learned in school, and there are many sources in German, it's just that there is a certain "Anglo" (as I see it) bias in pop/modern history, and since much of this doesn't directly effect English/American history, it's not well known outside of German speaking countries. Of course this problem effects (affects?) a lot of other countries and histories.

Friedrich Barbarossa was the first to add the "holy" part (although, as you said, it was unofficial), this was because he had Charlemagne sainted, in order to strengthen and glorify his heritage and position. The addition of regnum Teutonicum or Nationis Germanicum were indeed unofficial, and made official in 1512.

Oh and it's Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation

Yeah, Maximilian I did reform the empire and tried to forge a early modern Nation, which lead to conflicts. For example the Swiss broke away from HRE in 1499, after a dispute over imperial taxes and courts.
Still, the HRE was more than just the German lands, the kingdom of Germany maybe was a German nation within the HRE.

Friedrich II was nominally a German, but he spent only a minor fraction of his time in Germany. Born in Sicily he spent most of his time there or on crusades. Imho he was a figure ahead of his time (Vordenker), he supported science, religious freedom, absolutism, instituted the "Mainzer Landesfrieden" (peace in the realm) and turned his home of Sicily into a beacon of "enlightenment". He lead the 6th crusade, with no hope of military success (he had been ragebanned by the pope) he managed to secure a bloodless peace treaty with the muslims, securing access of Jerusalem for pilgrims. After his death and the reign of Konrad IV, the Hohenstaufer line died and with it the period called the "High middle ages" leading to the rise of the Habsburger dynasty in the late middle ages.

In this period (beginning a lot early of course) came the increasing urbanisation of the realm (I use the word realm, because the German word "Reich" just doesn't have the same meaning of empire, as is often misunderstood), the cities often evolved out of the "Pfälze" (Palatinates), I should've mentioned this earlier, but the subject is so very complex that I often leave out details, and then realize how important they could be. During the (High) Middle Ages, neither the Kingdom of Germany, nor the HRE had a capital. The kings and emperors were so called "Wanderkönige", meanig they had no permanent residence, but travelled through the realm with their entourage to the various important seats of government Pfälze (s. Pfalz). On the way the way were supplied by the villages they passed, the villages had to provide certain amounts of food, livestock and beer (of course the peasents were quite happy to see the kingly entourage leave their area, even if they considerd the king/emperor as divine, and would touch the hem of his cloak for good fortune, people back then had different view of the world)

When would you say a German identity really developed though? Rather than Hessian, Bayerischer, Schwäbisch, etc

there is nothing more pathetic than an "muh heritage" american

Bismarck. Also it never went away up to now.
German territories are very proud of their own distinct little cultures in Germany.
Especially the south and east.

In the late MA, the many evolving cities were often "free imperial (or just one of those adjectives, I don't think the difference is so important) cities". This meant that the cities could largely govern themselves, didn't have to answer to nobles and gave their taxes directly to the king (as I mentiond earlier). This gave them the money to finance universities or cathedrals.

I think the "archetype" of a certain German identity has existed for as long as the "theodisc"-culture existed, it was just more pluralistic than other cultures.
Isn't wrong (I consider myself first as a Badener, and second as German), but I think it is somewhat oversimplified, "Aus nix wird nix" the root has been there for more than a millenium

There definitely is, but I've seen cases of a lack of willingness to translate things to English in the idea that it'd lose meaning. I recall an old economics political economy from the 16th or 17th century in which that was the case. Probably not so common today though.
>Affect/effect
Affect for acting on something and effect for the that which received it. In that case, affects.

I see myself as Kölner or better but Rhinelander first too.
I dont see much in common with the east for example. Completly different mindset.
But given the Rhineland is Kanacken Central.

I now have the problem, that I just don't really know that much about the late MA. This is the period of the rise of the Habsburger dynasty and the rise of the Italian city-states as a dominat power(s).
I could continue with the beginning of the religious wars and then the 30 year war. I hope maybe someone could give more insight into the period between. Of course I could try to answer any questions about the period (to the extent of my knowledge), since I can utilise German and English sources and have a few books lying around.
Otherwise
are underrated posts.

Get out from my country, please

Rheinländer>>>>>>>Anything else
Just saying

The feeling for German ethnicity was early, maybe 10th century, "Teutschen Landen" etc. The feeling for a united Nation was indeed Bismarck. Like 11th century Bavarian would identify a Saxon as "Teutsch" but then the similarities stop.

>The feeling for a united Nation was indeed Bismarck
There was the Octoberrevolution in 1848, during which the crown of a united Germany was offered to the King of Prussia (who refused, since he didn`t not want to be King by the grace of the common people), but who really planted the desire for a unified nation (Nationalgefühl, for those of you who understand german) in the hearts of the Germans was Napoleon.

>Other towns would often try to hire such a master to improve their legal sytem.
I love how silly and macabre this is.

keep in mind, executing people is the smallest part of the job. running parts of the police forces, doing criminal investigations including strictly regulated torture, running the local gaol, control the local whore mongers, dentists and other dishonest people, keep the peace amongst the dishonest. All while not getting highly corrupt or a clinical alcoholic that's what made a good executioner.
Being able to run a complex torture execution with good showmanship and dignity is just what made them famous.

If you are interested, "Bettler und Gaukler, Dirnen und Henker" by Franz Irsigler is great but only available in German.
"Die Ehre des Scharfrichters" / "The faithful Executioner" by Joel Harrington is a mixed blessing, it is available both in German and English and deals with the detailed journal and life of the famous 16th century executioner Frantz Schmidt, but Harrington tries to turn the story in some modern tale about human dignity, which at some point gets annoying. But then the source material is excellent. It is also interesting because it takes a detailed look at the medical qualities of an Executioner, which were impressive in Master Frantz's case.

Could some one screen cap the informative posts in this thread, like what some one did with that great game thread?

I definitly could.
I am too lazy tho

OP, here. I'm constantly checking and will do when it 404's. This thread is an absolute gold mine. Many thanks to yall which have contributed, particularly Rheinland/Köln user which has posted the impressive history and the other user with insights into the small everyday life stuff.

Dunno if anyone cares about this specific topic, but here is something on the old Swiss Confederation (German: Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft, lit. Swiss oath association)
>1291 "Eternal Association" of the three forest towns of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden. The aim was, like elsewhere, assuring local peace and showing assertiveness against real or imagined expansionist threats from the Habsburgs. There was at most only tempoary hostility between the towns and the Habsburg, based foremost on the opening of a new (and shorter) route connecting the Upper Rhine and North italy that lead trough the towns. Any conjecture that they intended to form a modern state would be highly anachronistic.
>The historical tradtion is rather sparse and tainted by romantic tales (there is, for exampel, no historical record of Tell shoting down the apple). The old swiss confederation was in itself nothing special and only became the basis of an important historical construct due to unexpected circumstances. Only the successfull interplay of the so-called "Urcantons" with non-Habsburg Kings allowed them to better their rather weak formal position (Unterwalden was, at the time, a domain of the Habsburgs, and Schwyz was under habsburgian law), which they did in order to weaken the habsburgian pretenders for the throne. Other factors that played a role where the fortunate topographie of the cantons as well as the constant swiss victories against the Habsburgs, thanks to their novel and unchivalrous way of waging warfare (1315 Morgarten, 1386 Sempach). These victories lead to more victories, and after the Habsburgs became the permanent Kings their lose also meant the lose of the realm. At the end of the medieval age is the (by now much larger) Confederation de factp independent, de facto by the year 1648. [From Ploetz, Deutsche Geschichte, Epochen und Daten]

I just hope I did not butcher this too much in translation.

>novel and unchivalrous way of waging warfare
Justified self defence by early democrats against some feudal cunts.

>de facto independent, de facto by the year 1648
That should obviously mean de facto independent, de jure by the year 1648

this may give you a general idea
youtube.com/watch?v=DgheO1Hbbt8

de facto is 1499 with the treaty of Basel. Pretty cool, the Swiss btfo'd the 20 times larger HRE and then King Maximilian I. The Swiss are like Hapsburg cryptonite.

Bump

>mentions Rhineland user
>doesn't mention Badener user, who has carried the entire thread
yeah thanks asshole