Why did it take them so many centuries to unify? It took China only 200 years to go from Spring Autumn to Qin dynasty. Wouldnt being so disunited make them vulnerable to foreign incursions? How come they never got annexed into other states like France?
>>18587161Almost 400 years after that pic we have this
Reminder that Prussians are faggot sodomites.
>>18587161>How come they never got annexed into other states like France?Because other states in Europe weren't much more centralised either. France for example achieved a united and central government in the late 17th century with the ascension of Louis XIV. While this process began in the late 16th century with the actions of Cardinal Richelieu (and his successor Cardinal Mazarin) it took nearly a century, a few civil wars and external wars and left France exhausted at the beginning of the 18th century.The HRE until the 13th century was also far more centralised than it's later versions.
>>18587191I dont think you have to be centralized that much to conquer a bunch of city states.
>>18587161For example, in Poland, the feudal fragmentation lasted from 1138 to 1320.Of course it could have ended earlier for example, Przemysł II crowned himself King of Poland in 1295, but was kidnapped and killed shortly after his coronation. There were also earlier attempts at unification interrupted by the disastrous Mongol invasion in 1241, which resulted in the disintegration of the Silesian Henrys' state and Henry II the Pious was killed by the Mongols at the Battle of Legnica.I suspect that similar instances occurred in German history delaying the unification of all the principalities into a single country.
>>18587161>Why did it take them so many centuries to unify?They didn't want to. If the empire was to centralize further and unite under the emperor it would come at the expense of the power of all the other ruling elite, so they fiercely resisted any attempts at centralization and actively tried to de-centralize the empire.>Wouldnt being so disunited make them vulnerable to foreign incursions? By who? All their neighbors were weaker and most if not all were busy with the same problem, a weak king trying to tardwrangle his aristocracy. When Burgundy emerged as a powerful, centralized this did become a problem, and when they invaded there was a sense of worry among the princes, enough worry for them to actually cooperate with the emperor for once, and they sent combined forces to aid the besieged city of Neuss. When France managed to centralize it did end up as a vastly more powerful state than anything inside the HRE. The Habsburgs only managed to continue to fight them through the financing of Jakob Fugger and later on all the wealth brought in by the Spanish treasure ships.>How come they never got annexed into other states like France?France did conquer much of the western HRE over time.
>>18587205Why didn't HRE get partitioned by Denmark, Sweden, Britain, France, and Russia? What those princes going to do?
>>18587161They were already all unified dejure politically, the HRE’s universal nature made everyone for the longest time be content with the decentralized settlement post 30 years war. Nobody wanted to rock the boat largely because of that war, until Napoleon invaded and made it fully insolvent with his alternative confederation of the Rhein.
>>18587207>denmarkBusy fighting Sweden>swedenBusy fighting Denmark, Poland, Russia, though they did participate heavily in the 30 Years War>britainThey would much rather enlist the help of the HRE to fight their mutual enemy France>franceThey did fight the HRE for centuries and took much land from them, much thanks to France actually centralizing into a functioning, powerful state instead of being divided into dozens if not hundreds of sub-entities>russiaToo far away, the PLC was between them and they're more concerned with the steppe nomads they're bordering
>>18587215>PLC was between themDuring the 7 years war, Russia marched past them straight into Berlin. The poles didn't seem to mind all that much.
>>18587218Specifically during what period are you asking about? The HRE lasted for over a thousand years, the reason why their neighbors did or did not invade them will vary over the centuries.
>>18587220The entire period of HRE's existence since proclaiming themselves the HRE and then its dissolution until Napoleon. Why did it take till Napoleon for the Germans to unite? We see the Russians united, the French, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Spain etc. These states could unite so why couldn't the Germans? The states frequently went to war with each other did they not? How come one of them didn't win the Germanbowl and conquer the until Napoleon kicked their asses and dissolved their states?
>>18587207The Habsburg retained their status as a great power through its consolidation of Bohemia-Hungary, successfully preventing partition and protecting Imperial Principalities.
>>18587226Why didn't those inbred Catholics gobble up the rest?
>>18587228Wasn’t for a lack of trying, the main trigger of the 30 years war was the Habsburg attempt at centralizing the state. Only problem was foreign powers effectively intervened.
>>18587235Yeah but why didnt those same foreign powers gobble up those states instead
>>18587223My understanding is that the framework of the Holy Roman Empire actively prevented it because the local autonomy of so many princes, bishops and cities was preserved by how the entity functioned. The elective nature of the HRE was also a massive handicap, because securing an election for yourself or your heir in the HRE meant bribing the electorate, either through cash, land grants or additional privileges granted (= more decentralization) whereas in say England or France the crown was simply hereditary. People often say that the HRE was hereditary because the crown more or less tended to go to the son of the emperor, which is true, but they fail to mention the gigantic cost of securing that election. For the most part the HRE also had a balance of power that they actively fought to preserve, until the rise of the Habsburgs (who were dirt broke and preoccupied with fighting the French for most of their existence after they gained power) and later Prussia there simply were no large, dominant power that could conquer its neighbors piece by piece until it directly ruled the whole thing - but by the time that happened there were already rival centralized modern states (primarily France) that actively did not want to see a united Germany. Note that I'm not a historian, I'm just an amateur who's picked up things from podcasts and skimming through Wikipedia articles, but my understanding is that it goes something like "the HRE actively fought itself not to unite > the only power that could unite them was busy fighting for its life, but did eventually manage to build a (non-German) empire by securing Burgundy, Spain, Hungary and Bohemia, and then a large dominant force appeared (Prussia) which did end up conquering much of Germany and did eventually unite it, during an era where rivals would actively seek to prevent unification.
>>18587161Cuz it's hot to fight over everything.
>>18587240Boggles my mind how those Margraves and Dukes didn't just gobble their neighbors until they got large enough to challenge the Emperor. Thats what happened in China after the start of Spring and Autumn which culminated into 7 kingdoms.
>>18587247Taking castles and walled cities was hard as fuck and more importantly incredibly expensive. There's nothing 'just' about it. An emerging duke can through a stroke of bad luck die to disease, die childless or be succeeded by some incompetent spoiled dickhead who bankrupts his family by hunting and fucking courtiers all day. Not every ruler is ambitious, competent and allowed to operate with impunity without his neighbors forming a coalition against him if he's too successful at conquering things. Ottokar II, the iron king of Bohemia was one of the richest and most powerful men in Europe, he conquered much of Austria, Styria, Tyrol and Carinthia but then lost everything to a coalition of his neighbors who were (understandably) concerned about his expansion. A setback like that can last generations for a dynasty, because it could be the case that he was very powerful and has much control over his kingdom, but if he dies prematurely the regency for his infant son quickly decentralizes the kingdom so when it's time for the heir to rule they find themselves back on square 1, having to fight his own magnates for power while having a tenth of his father's troops and money at his disposal (or worse, the previous war left the kingdom bankrupt)It's not as straightforward as a strategy video game where you just snowball by conquering one province after the other while a clueless computer player is completely unreactive to your expansion, in history political power and the fortune of families constantly waxed and waned.
>>18587179Frederick the great was GAY AS FUCKKK. He wanted that French boypussy BAD. His philosophy was just a stunt to get a French harem.
>>18587256If that is the case, why didn't China also take the same path? Instead they went full total war and gobbled whatever they could.
>>18587193The HRE wasn't a bunch of city states.>>18587198For the HRE the process of decentralisation really began with Emperor Friedrich II. in the 13th century. While he was emperor he also became King of Sicily and heavily focused his energy on southern Italy (which brought fruits as the Kingdom of Sicaly became very prosperous). To secure his position within the HRE he granted several privileges to the ecclesiastical and secular princes but this backfired as now those princes had the legal ability to act very independantly from imperial authority. It didn't help that Friedrich II. came into conflict with the Papacy, the northern italian states, his own son and several princes of the realm. In the end Friedrich II. got excommunicated (again) but managed to militarily hold his own in Italy until his death in 1250 but he had lost nearly all influence in HRE and thus a period of uncertain (counter-)kings befell it until Rudolf I. of Habsburg got elected in 1271 (the Interregnum occured well before the death of Friedrich II. but he and his sons were able to content with the early counterkings). But by this point the cat was out of the bag and the princes were keen on preserving the rights that were given to them by Friedrich II. >The entire period of HRE's existence since proclaiming themselves the HRE and then its dissolution until Napoleon.Those are over 1000 years of history. Do you expect a gigantic effortpost that analyses the geopolitics of several states over the course of 10 centuries? >Why did it take till Napoleon for the Germans to unite?The german states were all equally strong (for the most part) and foreign interventions (both martial and politically) did their part. You are also vastly simplifying the unification processes of the other states that all took until the late 17th or even 18th century to bear fruit.
How autistic do I need to be to into HRE history? Looks complicated
>>18587269Honestly, I'm not sure, but I would guess that the different regions just developed differently. To my understanding they didn't go through the same form of feudalism as the Europeans did. The Italian Wars are to my knowledge what you're describing, France simply decided to "fuck it I'm going to conquer as much of Italy as possible" but this was only made possible because Europe had developed so much past the collapse of the Roman Empire at this time. France was a large, centralized state that could consistently collect tax revenue which it used to fund mercenaries and professional, drilled salaried soldiers, and there were lots of universities pumping our literate people educated in law that could serve as career bureaucrats. Previously in the feudal system you didn't really outright conquer territory in the same way, you subjugated whatever local elite was in place and made them swear fealty to you, now you could displace them more and replace more with career bureaucrats. The old system of power based on personal relations was dissolving more and more with the emergence of early modern states. As far as I know most eastern states operated more like that throughout their existences, they revolved heavily around highly urbanized cities (instead of spread out castles) and kept their systems of taxation and bureaucracy even through dynastic changes, whereas when the Roman Empire went into decline due to civil wars and plagues the cities were depopulated, and with them the civil servants that make modern states and empires possible.>>18587275As with most subjects you can get a decent understanding of it (and certainly better than most people) but literally just reading through Wikipedia. I can also recommend History of the Germans, it also covers Bohemia, northern Italy and other HRE territories.
>>18587276Not the anon you're talking to but kudos on the argument anon!
>>18587198>I suspect that similar instances occurred in German historyPretty close in the case of the kingdom of Germany, expect it turned a centralised kingdom into a highly decentralised one after over 20 years without any real authority and civil war. Kings after the interregnum held onto power by selling their rights and privileges to the Princes for support. It was a rapid spiral followed by a gradual collapse of power. Something similar happened in England during the Anarchy, the only real difference was that Henry II had still enough power and skill to reverse the near disintegration of crown power.>>18587275Pick a period and stick to it and you should have a good idea. It's like saying you know Roman history, ok what period? Middle Republic, Late Antiquity? The Carolingian Empire was not the same as the Ottonian Empire which was not the same as the late 13th century which again was not the same as the 17th century. I've mostly studied the Carolingians and in part the Salian and Hohenstaufen dynasty.
>>18587240>My understanding is that the framework of the Holy Roman Empire actively prevented it because the local autonomy of so many princes, bishops and cities was preserved by how the entity functioned.Largely this. And the position of German King and Emperor was de facto herediatry until the 13th century. See my previous post about Friedrich II.>>18587239They largely weren't able to. The eastward expansion of France took several centuries, Denmark several wars against the HRE and the Hanseatic League, Sweden was busy with Denmark (and vice versa), Poland was busy with the mongols, Lithuania, Russia, the Teutonic Knights, the Ottomans and itself, Russia was too far away for the most part, etc. And all of those states and more faced internal wars too. >>18587247>Boggles my mind how those Margraves and Dukes didn't just gobble their neighbors until they got large enough to challenge the Emperor. They had this tool called Imperial Ban, which strips any prince of his secular positions and rights and also excommunicates him. Those occured several times and always the revolting princes were put down by an imperial army and then either renewed their oaths of fielty or were simply replaced. >>18587269I'm not well read on chinese history but isn't it also rife with civil wars, breaking apart and then reforming somewhat?
>>18587284>I'm not well read on chinese history but isn't it also rife with civil wars, breaking apart and then reforming somewhat?They broke apart a few times but always got back together again. East Francia broke apart and never got put back for a thousand years.
>>18587161>It took China only 200 years to go from Spring Autumn to Qin dynasty.It took China around 550 years and it was caused by the hegemon state fucking up (Jin) and the upstart drawing power from unexpected places to dick everyone else into submission (Qin).HRE went through much the same process. Took around 900 years but in the end they also had the hegemon (Habsburgs) fuck up followed by the upstart drawing on Baltics and earlier/easier access to Industrialisation to dick the rest down (Prussians).
>>18587269>If that is the case, why didn't China also take the same path?Because Chinese mentality is completely different. It's not just about the individual—society—but also about complete obedience to anyone higher in the hierarchy, whether it be the emperor, an official, a father, an older brother, or a teacher.
>>18587300Have you ever met a single German in your life, anon? Worked in any German company?Whether it's Hitler, Stalin or Putin, their culture loves obedience to hierarchy and official power. They literally created Eastern Europe in their image (since the poor Slavic fucks had no other culture to go off of) and that's also a den of endless asskissing of authority.And the Chinese are the same. "Oh, but the Germans at least complain about it in private a fuckton," my sweet summer child, you've never been on a Chinese forum after any dicking they receive from CCP officials. That kind of tsundere-ish behavior is common to all of them. Bitch about the leader but scream "harder daddy!" when he comes to dick them over.
>>18587161>Bitsch
>>18587318>cammin>stolp
>>18587161Europeans were much better at making castles, which meant every lordling could tell the central authority to piss off till cannons were invented.
>>18587275It's honestly not that complicated. Just pick a destinct time period and be wary of the fact that the systems of governance evolved with time while simultaneously old medieval claims of privlege held importance well into the modern period (similar to how other states functioned - parts of the eastward expansion of France in the early modern period was legitimised with [forged] medieval claims).>>18587294How well did China reform each time? Was the central authority of the chinese emperor always unquestioned and were their orders always carried out by their officials without any resistance?
>>18587322Chinese sieges often times lasted several years and they would eat their inhabitants rather than surrender. Europeans cannons were also ineffective against the Chinese walls which were several meters thick with a soft mud core that absorbed the impact.>>18587324>How well did China reform each time? Was the central authority of the chinese emperor always unquestioned and were their orders always carried out by their officials without any resistance?Usually they had to get the vanquished to switch sides and join them or kill them all. The dynastic transitions have millions of deaths.
>>185873090_0This is scary if it is true
>>18587309Germany was its own thing within Europe. Not the despotism and backwardness of Eastern Europe, but also a very different spirit and tradition than the "liberal-democratic" West. One of order, hierarchy, discipline. Of course that's gone now.
>>18587350>Not the despotism and backwardness of Eastern Europe>One of order, hierarchy, discipline. We all know the meme, anon. No need to be so obvious about it.DespotismDespotism, Deutschland
>>18587359But I saw it in a different version:-thing-Japanese thing
>>18587388The point isn't so much Japan, just that people often lampshade a lot of that behavior when it comes to anything to do with Japan.To that anon, despotism in Germany is somehow better than despotism anywhere else because...Just like with Japan, where there's lots of things that they do genuinely get better than others (and fuck up other things instead), Germany is still better off than Eastern Europe or China today but it's got nothing to do with cherry trees nor receptibility to authoritative tendencies. Which are the exact same whether you're on the volcanic island in the Pacific, Grzegorz's hometown or any part of the Holy Lidl/Aldi Empire.
>>18587359Well, under that "despotism" they produced the greatest intellectual accomplishments in Europe. Be it Kant, Bach, Beethoven, Gauss, Planck etc.
>>18587161Modern nation states are a product of the French revolution. Prior to that all 'nations' were just complex systems of lords and vassalages.
>>18587161German noble households controlled most of Europe for much of the Medieval and early Modern period. The German nobility was confident in its own power so it didn't have the siege mentality necessary to adopt pan-German ethnic nationalism, which as largely a response to anti-German French and Slavic nationalism
>>18587269China was filled with small fiefdoms during many parts of its history. You could draw a feudal map similar to an HRE one for some periods, if you wanted to depict every fief or military zone. The difference is that legalist philosophers recognized the dangers of feudalism, nepotism, and partible inheritance very early in Chinese history, and the Qin actually put some of their ideas into practice. They were ultimately unsuccessful in abolishing fiefs, but the idea was always there. Eventually later dynasties would succeed in abolishing enfeoffment.The fundamental difference stems from differing family structures among Germanic peoples and Chinese peoples.The Chinese had clan structures, with their own parallel system of clan laws and enforcement of punishment by clan elders. Since the Han, inheritance was spread out among all descendants, though sons of the primary wife were usually favored. (they had concubinage, another important difference)However, the clan structure was a hierarchy, meaning even if the inheritance was divided, the older always presided over the younger, and usually had titles to match. Even if estates were split up, the authority was not.Germanic peoples also practiced partible inheritance. But they did not have clans as a unifying force in the same way. So when the estates split, so did the authority. This led to every little barony feuding with each other. Of course, the same thing happened in China sometimes. But these feuds usually ended in one side or the other gaining the undivided clan authority.In Germany there was no such thing. This was even true for rulers in the feudal hierarchy. If a German duke dies and splits his duchy in three to satisfy his sons, there are now three equal rulers. If a Chinese prince dies, he might divide his property among three or five or twelve sons, but his old uncle is still the head of the clan. The clan retains the same amount of land and authority rests in the same place.
>>18587161>portray the HRE as every single county heh>portray every other kingdom and europe as a single color I hate mapmakers for perpetuating this meme
>>18587476China was a nation state complete with nationalism long before European enlightenment
One has to wander why the 30 years war didnt see the annexation of all of the HRE into Prussia, Sweden
>>18588013Most of China didn't even speak the same language until the mid-late 20th century anon
>>18588607Sweden wanted to. The issue was that Sweden was kind of a meme coasting on the reputation of Gustavus Adolphus as some Protestant crusader and the fact that they were basically France's proxy that forced the northern Protestants to join them. By itself, Sweden had no hope of being a legitimate threat to Austria because its finances could not sustain operations without hefty subsidies whilst the opinion of German Protestants soured because of Sweden basically being a foreign conqueror levying heavy taxes and bullying the smaller principalities. By the end, Sweden had lost a lot of its negotiating power and was happy to get out with a few coastal territories. Source: my vague memory of Europe's Tragedy
>>18588608They wrote the same language.
>>18588627Sweden extracted 5 million thalers and could absolutely force Austria to give up more electorates. No idea why they didnt. Could have formed a protestant confederation.
>>18588607Brandenburg-Prussia was heavily damaged by the war being fought on its territories and they were loyal to the austrian Emperor. Only the intervention and direct threat of Sweden made Brandenburg-Prussia side with the swedes and then only until 1635, when they sided again with the Emperor. But as the lands were devastated and the Elector of Brandenburg sought refuge in the Duchy of Prussia or his possessions in the Rhineland, Brandenburg itself was a waste of a country.>>18588627Sweden also got checked multiple times by imperial-spanish armies in the 1630s/40s. People really underestimate the might the Habsburg Austria and Spain could bring to the table. An imperial-spanish army even threatened Paris in 1636 and devasted the northwestern french countryside. The reality was that all powers were nearly bled dry by the end of the war.
>>18588657That's like saying all Western Europeans write in Latin
>>18587161>Why did it take them so many centuries to unify?Probably because the concept of personal rights and the inalienability of the same existed in Europe.
>>18588737Kek retard.
>>18588659To add to what the other guy said, Europe's Tragedy sort of goes into this as well. Sweden's delegation at the Peace of Westphalia wasn't particularly great. It was Axel Oxensternia's son who I remember being described as not particularly competent who was also up against some of the most experienced and eminent men in Europe. Plus, he had to deal with a bunch of fuckery and meddling from the bosses back home. Along with that, the Swedish regime was not particularly popular among the Germans and Sweden's own resources were stretched and exhausted. Something like 90% of Swedish conscripts were dead within 6 months of stepping off the boat in Germany. Overall, getting out of the German quagmire without being humiliated or facing internal collapse was a victory, even if they probably could have gotten more out of it. I believe that Axel Oxenstierna and a lot of the Swedish nobility weren't too excited about forming some kind of northern Baltic empire either because it was mostly Gustavus Adolphus's idea but then he died and Sweden was still stuck in the shit though I might be misremembering some of these personal dynamics.
>>18588659The sum of 5 million Taler were for the demobilisation of the swedish army. In some cases regiments were de facto bought the german states directly from the swedes. >to give up more electoratesWhat? Sweden gained no electorate. The swedish king did become a prince of the HRE due to him gaining territories within it and its was able to participate in its Imperial Diets.>Could have formed a protestant confederation.No. After the Peace of Prague of 1635 nearly all imperial estates were fully on the side of the Emperor. The only "allies" Sweden had left in Germany were held at gunpoint.
