German History 1789-1871: From the Holy Roman Empire to the Bismarckian Reich

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Robert D. Billinger ◽  
Eric Dorn Brose
2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Joachim Whaley

Central European History (CEH) began to appear at a crucial juncture in the historiography of the Holy Roman Empire. Of course its remit was much broader. Founded sixteen years before the British journal German History, Central European History, together with the Austrian History Yearbook (founded in 1965) and the East European Quarterly (founded in 1967), took over the role occupied between 1941 and 1964 by the Journal of Central European Affairs. Each of these US journals shared an openness to new approaches and to work on all periods since the Middle Ages, as well as a desire—in the words of CEH's inaugural editor, Douglas Unfug—to keep “readers abreast of new literature in the field …,” with “reflective, critical reviews or review articles dealing with works of central importance … [and] bibliographical articles dealing with limited periods or themes…”


2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 547-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Aaslestad ◽  
Karen Hagemann

If the French faced the 200th anniversary of the Napoleonic Empire with some trepidation about how to commemorate the infamous Corsican, the British celebrated the Battle of Trafalgar as an enduring national victory. A grand exhibit in the National Maritime Museum in London, “Nelson and Napoleon,” observed this event in 2005. In contemporary Germany, however, the commemoration of 1806 has occurred mainly among small circles of specialists and remained largely absent from popular historical consciousness. In recent times, besides the exhibition on the Holy Roman Empire in the German Historical Museum in Berlin, only small local exhibits and substantial articles in magazines like Die Zeit and Der Spiegel recall 1806. Past momentous occasions such as 1848, 1914–1919, 1933–1945, and 1949 clearly overshadow in contemporary historical memory the tumultuous decades that surrounded the Napoleonic Wars. This tendency to overlook and underestimate the significance of the early nineteenth century also remains evident among scholars who work on later periods of German history. In the shadow of World Wars and the Holocaust, the period of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars between 1792 and 1815 seems distant to the contemporary audience. But why do historians also tend to disregard the importance of this era of warfare and domestic, social, and economic transformation—a period so rich in complexity—and its enduring consequences for nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe?


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-37
Author(s):  
Svetlana Vasileva

The article studies the Counter-Reformation process in Germany and the neighboring European ter-ritories in a wider context as a complex of geopolitical, social and religious problems growing in Europe in the 15th and the 16th centuries. The study aims at finding connections between the Reformation processes launched by Martin Luther and the subsequent course of German history during the Counter-Reformation. The article focuses on the situation in Germany against a wider background of the developments in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This paper con-tinues the author’s previous article on the German Reformation and Martin Luther’s role in it. It ex-amines the consequences of the Reformation that brought Germany on the edge of a humanitarian disaster in the Thirty Years’ War. The course of the war, as well as its geopolitical causes and con-sequences for Germany and for the whole of Europe are also investigated. The author describes and analyzes a broad historical and political context which determined the circumstances and reasons for many European states’ participation in the Thirty Years’ War, as well as the consequences of the Peace of Westphalia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-136
Author(s):  
Charles S. Maier

To set a single agenda for German history would be a foolhardy task, but let us begin with a major generalization about the long-term development of the field. Two mega-issues have dominated the historiography and debates for a century or more, standing on the path of historical research like some huge boulders that can not be moved or even circumvented. The first concerns how the German communities of Central Europe had constructed a nation-state—Tantae molis erat Germanam condere gentem, to adapt Vergil. There was a Prussian-centered statist answer by scholars including Leopold von Ranke, Heinrich von Treitschke, and Friedrich Meinecke, and continuing through Christopher Clark'sIron Kingdom. A more decentered approach has, by contrast, stressed local experiences; liberal and participatory currents of a political or religious (often Roman Catholic in sympathy, e.g., the work of Franz Schnabel) or cultural nature; and, finally, the heritage of a federalist constitutionalism, whether instantiated in the Holy Roman Empire or in the later celebratory afterglow ofHeimat. The second mega-issue that dominated the historiography for the first generation—perhaps half-century—after World War II and the collapse of Nazism was one that I was asked about at my undergraduate oral examinations in the spring of 1960: Where did Germany go wrong? The catastrophic career of National Socialist Germany, both internally and for Europe in general, compelled my generation and later ones never to lose sight of that issue. Even those who rejected claims about long-term disabling flaws in the emergence of liberal democracy—the political original sin, so to speak—had to address that fundamental issue.


2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 565-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER H. WILSON

The German political scientist and philosopher, Samuel von Pufendorf, described the Holy Roman Empire in 1667 as a ‘monstrosity’, because it did not fit any of the recognized definitions of a state. The issue of the Empire's statehood has been the most important consideration in its historiography in recent decades: was it a state? If so, what kind? This review addresses these questions by examining how the debate on the Empire is related to wider controversies surrounding German history, the contemporary process of European integration, and about political organization in general. It explains how these debates are rooted in the political and religious disputes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that still influence how the history of the Empire is written today. The four principal modern interpretations are identified and assessed: the Empire as a ‘failed nation state’, as a federation, and, more recently, as an ‘Empire-State’ or a ‘Central Europe of the Regions’. The piece concludes by offering a new explanatory framework to assess the Empire's political development.


Author(s):  
Helmut Walser Smith

This book departs in significant ways from previous histories of modern Germany. The book also represents a novel attempt to place German history in a deeper international and transnational setting than has hitherto been the case. This is the second important departure, and is, in this sense, that national histories and ‘area studies’ need to take fuller account of changes occurring in the wider world. There have also been a number of attempts to emphasize the history of the everyday, or to underscore the impact of war on German society. The book makes nation-state sovereignty into a decisive marker as well as a problem of modern German history. A concept of the German nation reaches at least to the early sixteenth century, when the Holy Roman Empire officially added the appellation ‘of the German Nation’. This article chronicles the history of Germany from the eighteenth century to the twentieth century.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document