Nationalism, peasant uprisings

[Kenneth Gauck]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kai Beste
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:15 AM


>It might also be interesting to mention that the king of the Holy
>Roman Empire Germany was *elected*.


Since my sent folder reveals I have not climbed onto one of my favorite
hobby horses in a while, I will remind readers that all monarchy is
elective. In some cases the assembly of the electors appears to be
cerimonial, but when succession is cast into doubt, the elective powers
re-assert themselves, such as in France in the early 14th century when the
direct Capetians were extinct and the realm needed to decide which of the
king's relatives succeded him. Likewise in England on several occasions.

>IMC I see the Anuireans as being in the early Renaisance
>technologically, but culturally in the High Middle Ages, since I like
>the feudal system and its feel. I think the HRE makes a great model
>for Anuire, not culturally but politically.
>

I certainly see Anuire as a kind of Holy Roman Empire. Provincial lords out
of control, the lack of an emperor vs the powerless emperor. I carry the
analogy further because I see the Gorgon as the Ottomans. I am remined of
men like Dürer, who campaigned for Germany unity against the Turks. And
Ferdinand, the brother of Charles V, who was not confirmed in any titles,
yet was supposed to unify the German princes against heresy, the Turks, and
France. (It was only after Mohacs that Ferdinand was finally confirmed as
Archuduke of Austria.) The Reich also had a hereditary office like Anuire's
Chamberlain.


>It took a long time until the idea of a national state took
>hold (18 cent.). It was only in 1861 that Germany was defined as a
>national state and reunited.
>
Your definition of nation is different from the one being used in this
context. Probably because you are familiar with the 19th century qualities
of nationalism. The list seems to have stumbled onto an earlier definition
of the word (I am guessing its not the result of early modern research, but
could be wrong).


You may find the following post interesting. It appeared on another list
only days ago.Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:54:09 +0000
From: "Dr. Philipp Ther"

>I have done research about Early Modern Silesia which might be interesting
>for you:
>
>You can find a national consciousness in early modern Silesia. Silesian
>Buergers and some of the Fuersten perceived themselves as Silesians and as
>belonging to the "Silesian nation". This consciousness was stronger among
>the Protestants than among the Catholics but you can find it among both
>confessions. Sourcewise you can trace back this consciousness in
>theoretical writings and in actions taken up by the populace at the
>relevant times. This Silesian consciousness was increasingly politicized
>at the end of the 16th century and at its high point before 1620. One can
>make similar findings in Bohemia and in Moravia, although the importance
>of Buergers as main carriers of the respective national consciousness
>varied.
>
>Despite the many modern characteristics of this pre-modern national
>consciousness (today's regions were referred to as natio), I would not use
>terms such as ethnicity or "cultural difference". The national
>consciousness in the early modern period was hardly cultural or ethnic -
>if we want to put it in these terms - but mostly political. The majority
>of German language historians distinguish between Nationalbewusstsein and
>Nationsbewusstsein. The second term refers to the early modern "nationes"
>which had different characteristics than modern nations. English does not
>offer this distinction, so there is little alternative to term national
>consciousness. Nevertheless, once this term is used for the early modern
>period, one has to keep in mind the different character of early modern
>nations.

So I could see a place (esp among certain classes) for an Avanese
consciousness, for instance.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kai Beste
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 9:00 AM

>
>The Renaisance saw the decline of Chivalry and the rise of the middle
>class.

This is a delicate statement. I'm sure you mean the start of the rise of
the middle class. The middle class always seems to be rising. The assent
of the Bürgertum surely takes so long that no one period can be said to
witness its rise. If we dated the start of assent with the rise of the
Hanse, and dated the arrival of the Middelstande in the decades of the
1850's and '60's, we see how long a climb it has been.

>Around 1500 an uprising of knights took place, and the leader (can't
>remember his name) was celebrated almost like a "people's king". But
>he could not wait long enough. The king laid siege to the leader's
>new built castle, and the wall crumbled because the mortar was not
>yet dry.

I think you are refering to the Knight's War (1522-23), led by Franz von
Sickingen and Ulrich von Hutten. The advocated the Reformed confession and
a reduction in the powers of the nobility and the church.

Kai, I found both of your posts interesting and a valuable addition to the
list.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kai Beste]

>
> >It might also be interesting to mention that the king of the Holy
> >Roman Empire Germany was *elected*.
>
>
> Since my sent folder reveals I have not climbed onto one of my favorite
> hobby horses in a while, I will remind readers that all monarchy is
> elective. In some cases the assembly of the electors appears to be
> cerimonial, but when succession is cast into doubt, the elective powers
> re-assert themselves, such as in France in the early 14th century when the
> direct Capetians were extinct and the realm needed to decide which of the
> king's relatives succeded him. Likewise in England on several occasions.

I must admit I don't know much about how things worked in England or
in France, but in the HRE, as I already stated, the king was elected
*every time*, not just when a bloodline was extinct out. Only some
emperors were powerful enough to secure the throne for their son.
Originally, this was meant to put the most able man on the throne,
but often enough the nobles put a less powerful king on the throne,
so that they could do more or less as they wanted. This was the case,
for example, with the Hohenstaufen. They owned very little land. But
later, all of them proved to be powerful kings.

Something like that might be an interesting story to set up an
already blooded character as a provincial ruler, instead
of investiture and land's coice. Maybe the character has proven
himself worthy in the eyes of the baron/count/whatever, and was
granted one of the domains provinces as a vassal. Later, the ruler
dies. The province rulers (let's call them counts, for simplicities
sake) convene, and elect a new ruler: the PC, who then gets invested
and the counts swear fealty to him.

On a tangent, here's a somewhat related question I'm sure somebody
can answer. Were there different kinds of counts in England? If so,
what's the difference?

> >IMC I see the Anuireans as being in the early Renaisance
> >technologically, but culturally in the High Middle Ages, since I like
> >the feudal system and its feel. I think the HRE makes a great model
> >for Anuire, not culturally but politically.

> I certainly see Anuire as a kind of Holy Roman Empire. Provincial lords out
> of control, the lack of an emperor vs the powerless emperor. I carry the
> analogy further because I see the Gorgon as the Ottomans. I am remined of
> men like Duerer, who campaigned for Germany unity against the Turks. And
> Ferdinand, the brother of Charles V, who was not confirmed in any titles,
> yet was supposed to unify the German princes against heresy, the Turks, and
> France. (It was only after Mohacs that Ferdinand was finally confirmed as
> Archuduke of Austria.) The Reich also had a hereditary office like Anuire's
> Chamberlain.

That's a good comparison. The quarreling states will only ally when
the Gorgon starts on his next rampage, and even then the alliance
will be shortlived. This could be a nice dramatic event for a
campaign. Maybe the Gorgon marches south and lays siege to
Shieldhaven as the Turks did to Vienna. Quick help is required, or
the city will fall and the Heartlands will be open to Ol' Rockbutt.
This also could be interesting for nonregent PCs. Just have them be
in the city when it is enclosed by Mr. Clovenhooves' army. The PCs
could end up in the amry, helping to organise the denfences, or could
smuggle vital military information out of and into the city.

> >The Renaisance saw the decline of Chivalry and the rise of the
> >middle class.

> This is a delicate statement. I'm sure you mean the start of the
> rise of the middle class. The middle class always seems to be
> rising. The assent of the Buergertum surely takes so long that no
> one period can be said to witness its rise. If we dated the start
> of assent with the rise of the Hanse, and dated the arrival of the
> Middelstande in the decades of the 1850's and '60's, we see how long
> a climb it has been.

Ok, I should have been more specific. I meant the start of the rise
of the middle class. I am well aware of the fact that this was a
longer process, but I'm sure there was some kind of "breaking point",
when the middle class overtook the knights in economic and,
more important, social importance.

> I think you are refering to the Knight's War (1522-23), led by
> Franz von Sickingen and Ulrich von Hutten. The advocated the
> Reformed confession and a reduction in the powers of the nobility
> and the church.

Yes, I was referring to Sickingen.

> Kai, I found both of your posts interesting and a valuable addition
> to the list.

thanks

Kai