Did the Saxons ever fight for the Empire in the 30YW? And did the Empire ever fight against the Poles?
As far as I know, the Saxons always stood on the protestant side; concerning the Poles: they enjoyed the help of a catholic force sent by the Emperor as a help against the Swedes, but apart form that I know of no connection to the thirty years war.
Ta. But how about at other times? I've seen tantalising references to Polish-Imperial clashes, but have found no details.
QuoteDid the Saxons ever fight for the Empire in the 30YW?
Yes. At the beginning of the war the electorate of Saxony had joined the war in Bohemia on the side of the imperials (very important, as the war could be interpreted as a fight against an uprising). They joined the Swedish in 1630/31 after Tilly had invaded their territory and forced them to do so (and after the religious policy of the Emperor became increasingly untenable.)
Quote from: Draconarius on 25 March 2012, 04:15:12 PM
Yes. At the beginning of the war the electorate of Saxony had joined the war in Bohemia on the side of the imperials (very important, as the war could be interpreted as a fight against an uprising). They joined the Swedish in 1630/31 after Tilly had invaded their territory and forced them to do so (and after the religious policy of the Emperor became increasingly untenable.)
Thank you. Everyone seems determined to misunderstand the question about Poles, and whether they ever fought against the empire at any time, and not just in the 30YW.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 25 March 2012, 11:54:39 PM
Thank you. Everyone seems determined to misunderstand the question about Poles, and whether they ever fought against the empire at any time, and not just in the 30YW.
Previous to the 30YW Poland had its hands full with Russians, Swedes and Ottoman Turks. During the eighteenth century it went downhill rapidly.
The Saxons did invade Poland in 1733 in concert with the Russians, in support of Augustus II's claim to the Polish throne. However, there was no Polish army as such, the rival claimant fled and there were thus no battles.
But of course the Vistula Legion and others fought for Napoleon against Austria.
In other words, I'll have to be content with fighting my hussars and drabs against Muscovites, Swedes, Cossacks, and Turks, and do without Austrian enemies? Oh, how very disappointing.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 March 2012, 09:15:07 AM
In other words, I'll have to be content with fighting my hussars and drabs against Muscovites, Swedes, Cossacks, and Turks, and do without Austrian enemies? Oh, how very disappointing.
Maybe you could fight some Brandenburgers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Labiau
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 March 2012, 09:15:07 AM
In other words, I'll have to be content with fighting my hussars and drabs against Muscovites, Swedes, Cossacks, and Turks, and do without Austrian enemies? Oh, how very disappointing.
Ironically it was John Sobieski's Poles who saved Austria's bacon at the siege of Vienna in 1689.
Quote from: Hertsblue on 26 March 2012, 05:45:24 PM
Ironically it was John Sobieski's Poles who saved Austria's bacon at the siege of Vienna in 1689.
I know. A Polish gaming buddy says they still remember that the Germans never really thanked them. But the good news is that there WAS a scrap between Polish and Imperial soldiers in the War of the Polish Succession. The war lasted about half an hour, admittedly, but it did happen.
Which means I'll have to get an Imperial army to keep my Swedes, Turks, and Polacks happy. (Looks ruefully at anorectic wallet.)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 27 March 2012, 06:36:43 AM
A Polish gaming buddy says they still remember that the Germans never really thanked them.
This remembering of things done, things not done, things thanked for and not thanked for generally reminds me of the GW dwarfes... :D
However, it would be quite difficult to find "germans" in 1683. The 10.000 Bavarians soldiers, the 10.000 Saxon or the 10.000 soldiers from the south western imperial states who formed one third of the relief army and contributed their part to the victory? -The 20.000 men from the Habsburgian lands who formed another part of the army? The rest of the imperial estates in the northern part of germany who didn't take part in the campaign? Or the inhabitants of Vienna?
And nowadays it wouldn't be much easier. The Austrians don't want to be seen as germans (and by the way: It seems to me, that they don't regard the inhabitants of Vienna as Austrians). And a politican of the Federal Republic of Germany would hardly thank as he probably would face some protest by left wing parties and turkish communities. The only people who would thank are probably those - at least I imagine so - who would without hesitating mount some Panzers and Stukas because they are remembering the territorial changes after the WW2. This causes the other side to remember 1939. Thereon some react by remembering the early 1920s and so on.
Sometimes forgetfulness can be a very good thing. :D
Quote from: Draconarius on 30 March 2012, 11:57:54 PM
However, it would be quite difficult to find "germans" in 1683. The 10.000 Bavarians soldiers, the 10.000 Saxon or the 10.000 soldiers from the south western imperial states who formed one third of the relief army and contributed their part to the victory? -The 20.000 men from the Habsburgian lands who formed another part of the army? The rest of the imperial estates in the northern part of germany who didn't take part in the campaign? Or the inhabitants of Vienna?
And nowadays it wouldn't be much easier. The Austrians don't want to be seen as germans
Mmm, but you shouldn't graft modern senses of the word onto the seventeenth century. No Austrian, Bavarian, Brandenburger etc. would have found the label "German" inappropriate at the time, since it would have described a linguistic and cultural group, and the term was hijacked for a nation much later. Rather as so many other words have drifted out of sight of their original meanings. In fact, I'm interested in whether I'll live to see the NEXT generation of lexis for the word "Gothic".
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 March 2012, 09:15:07 AM
In other words, I'll have to be content with fighting my hussars and drabs against Muscovites, Swedes, Cossacks, and Turks, and do without Austrian enemies? Oh, how very disappointing.
Well, you could still use them in the GNW..that's also the last European war which somehow fits the "Pike & Shotte" description.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Battle_of_Kalisz_1706.png)
Saxon guy in ticorne and Huassaria, here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kalisz
QuoteMmm, but you shouldn't graft modern senses of the word onto the seventeenth century. No Austrian, Bavarian, Brandenburger etc. would have found the label "German" inappropriate at the time, since it would have described a linguistic and cultural group, and the term was hijacked for a nation much later. Rather as so many other words have drifted out of sight of their original meanings. In fact, I'm interested in whether I'll live to see the NEXT generation of lexis for the word "Gothic".
That's a good point. I've recently read "The War of the Austrian Succession" by Reed Browning and contemporary French sources spoke of the "Germans" who had been chased out of Piedmont and they did not mean Prussians or whatever, but the Austrian army.
QuoteA Polish gaming buddy says they still remember that the Germans never really thanked them
That's because he has no idea of the German mentality towards their own history; Draconarius described it quite fittingly ;)
The Austrians intervened in the 2nd Northern War (1655-60) on the side of the Poles. A combined Austrian/Brandenberg/Polish army campaihned in North Germany. This was part of the period of Polish history called the Deluge and happened at the same time as Thirteen Years War(1654-67) between the Poles and Russians (and various others).
As far as I know there were no Saxons.
As already mentioned the Saxons fight in the GNW along with and against Poles who look the same as renaissance types. You also have Cossacks in this war and Otomans/Tartars/etc could also feature. Unfortunately the Saxons are in Marlburian style uniforms by this point.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 31 March 2012, 12:25:56 AM
Mmm, but you shouldn't graft modern senses of the word onto the seventeenth century. No Austrian, Bavarian, Brandenburger etc. would have found the label "German" inappropriate at the time, since it would have described a linguistic and cultural group, and the term was hijacked for a nation much later. Rather as so many other words have drifted out of sight of their original meanings. In fact, I'm interested in whether I'll live to see the NEXT generation of lexis for the word "Gothic".
Actually I think, that I am not grafting modern senses of the word on the sevententh century. The term "germans" your polish friend is using does this, as it seems to has it roots in a national view of an united german nation. Such a nation started to exist in the 19th century and was then justified by a common language and culture. Before it had mainly been an idea in the heads of educated and potent men (probably beginning around 1500 with the reception of Tacitus' Germania).
On the level of the common people it is even more complex. There are loyalities to and dependencies from the local landlords (again a lot of diversity in the Empire), there is a huge influence of confession (lasting until the 20th centuy in some areas), there are linguistic differences (still today :D), a limited mobility and so on. The common man probably never got an impression of the term "german" because he did not experience its variety.
The soldiers are a case sui generis.
Quote from: Draconarius on 31 March 2012, 10:59:33 AM
Actually I think, that I am not grafting modern senses of the word on the sevententh century. The term "germans" your polish friend is using does this, as it seems to has it roots in a national view of an united german nation. Such a nation started to exist in the 19th century and was then justified by a common language and culture. Before it had mainly been an idea in the heads of educated and potent men (probably beginning around 1500 with the reception of Tacitus' Germania).
On the level of the common people it is even more complex. There are loyalities to and dependencies from the local landlords (again a lot of diversity in the Empire), there is a huge influence of confession (lasting until the 20th centuy in some areas), there are linguistic differences (still today :D), a limited mobility and so on. The common man probably never got an impression of the term "german" because he did not experience its variety.
The soldiers are a case sui generis.
Actually, "German" is a Latin word which we use in English. The Slavic languages refer to Germans by a number of words like "Nemetski" (Czech, but it's close enough to Polish, and my Czech is better than my Polish), meaning something like "Barbarians who can't speak properly". And Piotr certainly knows his east European history well enough to know what he means when he uses the word, which is what most English-speakers, and most Latin-users (i.e. most of educated Europe), have meant by it for most of history.
The there's the films!...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Fire_and_Sword_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Fire_and_Sword_(film))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deluge_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deluge_(film))
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Wolodyjowski_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Wolodyjowski_(film))
8)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 31 March 2012, 11:25:08 AM
Actually, "German" is a Latin word which we use in English. The Slavic languages refer to Germans by a number of words like "Nemetski" (Czech, but it's close enough to Polish, and my Czech is better than my Polish), meaning something like "Barbarians who can't speak properly". And Piotr certainly knows his east European history well enough to know what he means when he uses the word, which is what most English-speakers, and most Latin-users (i.e. most of educated Europe), have meant by it for most of history.
And I can also list different terms and these wouldn't be only collective terms because of the language. There is also a variety of terms for "Germans" which have their origin in the contact with a single tribe:
Medieval Latin: (in the most cases) Teutons (Germani was first reintroduced with Humanism and the study of ancient latin texts)
Medieval Greek: Franks
Old Icelandic, Estonian and Finnish: Saxons
Sorbic: Bavarians
French, Turkish, Arabic, Spanish, Portugese, Welsh, Galician, etc.: Alemanni
in Switzerland: Swabonians
However: You can know eastern European history well enough - fine. But it won't help in this case. Perhaps it explains why some want to be thanked nowadays for things their ancestors have done (though they don't know if their direct ancestors took part directly at all ). But it doesn't explain why these peolple had not received thanks and won't receive thanks - this has to be explained by the history of those, from whom thank is expected.
[Besides: Wikipedia suggests that the Jan Sobieski was prized for the victory: "All the common people kissed my hands, my feet, my clothes; others only touched me, saying: 'Ah, let us kiss so valiant a hand!'"; additional he got a star constellation and a street in Vienna named after him and a church on the Kahlenberg is still organiszed by polish priests. If this is not a sign of thank, then I do not know.]
@J.S.: Ein kleines Gespräch über Kreta wäre jetzt eine sehr willkommende Abwechslung, findest du nicht? :D
Wie krieg Mann den Umlaut?
I've just entered it.
On the english keyboard layout it is probably the easiest way to enter it in word via symbols and copy it in the text field of the forum. :-\
Quote@J.S.: Ein kleines Gespräch über Kreta wäre jetzt eine sehr willkommende Abwechslung, findest du nicht?
Irgendwie läufts ja doch immer aufs selbe raus ;)
Quotemeaning something like "Barbarians who can't speak properly"
I speak some Polish and have no idea how this comes about; nie = no ; miec = to have. So I'd rather translate it as "the destitute barbarians" (who neverthless are always supposed to have enough money to safe the euro <:-P <:-P <:-P)
QuoteOn the english keyboard layout it is probably the easiest way to enter it in word via symbols and copy it in the text field of the forum
That's excactly how i write Polish texts, I have no ida how to creata a ł for example. :-/
However, in German you can simply write ue for ü oder ae for ä and so on (Huette instad of Hütte for example); I do this when i have to tipe a sms on my cellphone ec.
The negative is correct; the rest of the word means to speak. The derivation is common to Czech, Slovak, Polish, and Russian.
Don't know; to speak = mówić on Polish and that's the only eastern european language i know. Just asked some native speakers and they have never heard of it (but those Polish native speakers come from former Prussian Silesia, maybe not the best source? @-) ) I actually don't care how we are called in Slavic anyways, maybe I should add that bevore the discussion gets out of control. So if the Czech people think we have no idea about pronounciation let them do so, it's the truth! ;D
That's how I sound when speaking English, I even got the same sursame as the "German" Spy 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvWw77wBumY
Quote from: Draconarius on 31 March 2012, 07:43:35 PM
On the english keyboard layout it is probably the easiest way to enter it in word via symbols and copy it in the text field of the forum. :-\
On the English keyboard all the umlauts are represented on the extended ASCII character set. Hold down the Alt key and type the numeric code, e.g. ü = 129, ä = 132, ë = 137, ï = 139, Ã,, = 142, ö = 148, Ö = 153, Ãœ = 154. There are other more esoteric symbols too which frankly I don't recognise. The extended character set runs from 129 to 227.