Template talk:German Confederations 1806–1871

Austrian emperors as "German monarchs"?

Please stop to claim that AUSTRIAN Emporers had been "German Monarchs", and stop putting them on the list of "German Monarchs". The German Federation was a loose Federation and Austrian Emporers where only the "presidents", but they were (first of all!) AUSTRIAN Monarchs as they were emporers of the Austrian Empire. Germany didnt start to be an Empire before 1871 when the Dynasty of the "Hohenzoller" founde the "Deutsche Reich". So please keep the Austrian Emporers out of this, they had nothing to do with the German Empire as they had their own Empire. You can find all facts about this in the article Deutscher Bund. -- Rfortner 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, overzealous Austrian nationalism, perhaps? Maybe the template could have a better name, but it is not necessarily incorrect. A big piece of German history goes missing every time you revert this page. Please stop, it could be considered vandalism. Charles 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop with unwise words like "Austrian nationalism", I am socialdemocratic (and a convinced european!) but quite interested in a CORRECT historical presentation at Wikipedia. I dont do vandalism (this is a polemic by you), but saying that AUSTRIAN Emporers where "German Monarchs" is historically wrong and therefore I HAVE to revert it, sorry. Since 1804 there has been the Empire of Austria (founded by Franz II./I.). The German Confederation has been founded in 1815 after the Congress of Vienna as a loose Confederation of germanspeaking countries, and the austrian Emporers had the presidency. But History of the GERMAN Empire doesnt start before 1871 when it was founded, everything before where loose (con-)federations with other german-speaking countries. So there havent been German Monarchs (in the Meaning of a German Empire) before 1871, its also quite funny to call NAPOLEON (!) a German Monarchr, by the way. These are my facts, which are yours? Nice greetings from Vienna, -- Rfortner 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If there have not been German monarchs before 1871 (no, the meaning was not limited to the German Empire), how come you did not delete the whole template? I think I already know the answer. Charles 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt feel responsable for Napoleon (with the Rheinbund) and the Norddeutscher Bund and tried to keep my feets on safe ground where I am quite well aware in history ;-) But to be correct you would have to start the template with 1871, everything before have not been "Monarchs" of whole Germany, even the Norddeutscher Bund was only the Northern part of todays Germany while Bavaria was still an indipendent kingdom till 1871 (just one example) -- Rfortner 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A responsibility of a good Wikipedian is to never pass a fault. Feeling responsible for only part of a template that you feel is wrong in general is really an irresponsible attitude. Charles 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try ;-) ... But as mentioned above I know my domain. When discussing between Austrian Empire and German Empire I have my feets on save ground (and also at all the other topics concerning common history of Germany and Austria, even the unhappy parts like after 1938). But when discussing about the Rheinbund or Norddeutscher Bund I have to be more carefull if there may be some detail that I could have missed and which could be an argument against me in a discussion. But as far as I know German history books start the counting of the first national state of Germany - the German Empire - in 1871. Before 1871 they had the typicall german Kleinstaaterei (exagerated federalism) while Austria was unified by the Habsbourgs much more earlier. And till 1871 the Hohenzoller had only been Monarchs of Preussia but not of whole Germany. -- Rfortner 22:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Maybe an interesting article for you: Unification of Germany, read the first paragraph and everything is clear. BEFORE there where a lot of indipendent german(speaking) states. -- Rfortner 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, instead of continuing the discussion here, Charles calles this discussion not concluded and uses this to put dubious (and obviously false) information into related articles of AUSTRIAN monarchs. Hm, have you gone out of arguments? ;-) ... Be sure I will not let myself provoke for an edit-war to break the 3RR-rule. But if information is dubious, it will - in the long run - be deleted, just a question of time. -- Rfortner 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but this discussion is a useful as "has Mozart been an Austrian or a German?". I guess there is no politically and historically correct answer. In 1866 Austria left the Deutschen Bund and was completeley independent. Until then of couse Austria was "somewhat" German. But, of course, I also don't like the Austrian monarchs of the 19th century to be called german. In the aftermath, calling them (as Rfortner statet starting perhaps in 1804 with Joseph II) German is like calling George Washington a Briton. While there is some truth in both expressions, it's not how things are expected to be called.--Wirthi 08:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the template again I think that there is no use in such a template at all. You cannot put such a topic in a box of this small size. If you leave away the Austrian emperors, it would not be complete, but if you put them there, controversies such as this one will arise with questions why the Austrians were German Monarchs. --Wirthi 08:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think when you talk about Austria and 1804 you mean Franz II./I. and not Josef II.? ;-)

About the template: The only way it makes sense is when you limit it to the monarchs of the German Empire which was found in 1871 (and lastet as monarchie till november 1918 when Wilhelm had to fly from Berlin). All the people before are not correctly spoken EXCLUSIVE German Monarchs, so you have the same problem with Napoleon which funnily enough starts this list of German Monarchs ;-) A propos: I think that THIS template was strongly influenced by Template:Monarchs of France, but french history was (in this context) much more easier than Austro-German-history (so France is today still ONE country while Austrians and Germans had good reasons to split up and history has proven that everytime they did something together again it ended in a WorldWar, in 1914 as well as after 1938).

Therefore a serious recommend for limiting the list by starting it from 1871 (even when the Norddeutscher Bund was more or less the "birthplace" of a the later German Empire which was dominated by the Prussian House of Hohenzoller. But at the same time there where equal Monarchs in other states in the south, e.g. the house of Wittelsbach in Bavaria). By starting it from 1871, the template makes sense. -- Rfortner 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS @ Mozart: If he had been born after 1804, it would be much more easier to discuss about his "nationality".

Again, this is merely the case of an Austrian editor being miffed. Reference this comment: This article is a bad example of the way how some (!) germans pocket the history of some of their neighbour countries. (Talk:List of German monarchs#Article mixing up indipendent things) and his comment regarding what he feels responsible for in correcting "errors" (that is, he cares only for what cause he think he is serving to Austrian history. The fact of that matter is, whether this template is deleted or not, it should be complete and the proper avenue should be taken by editors objecting to its existance. Whether it should be renamed or not, it is missing an important block of information everything Rfortner essentially vandalizes it. The objection here is only to the word German, which is pointless! It's much like objecting to the use of "North America" in the context of Canada, Mexico, etc. It's pointless. One cannot apply the Austrian/German distinction of today to a time where it really did not exist. Charles 14:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it just goes to show Rfortner's motives: He accuses me of being a German editor with a German agenda! My dear friend, I am Canadian! Should I put an userbox on my page to the effect much like you have one indicating that you are indeed Austrian? Charles 14:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles, relax and dont overestimate your role here! When I was talking about German users I was pointing to Louis88, and I already left a message for him on his talk. His response shows me that he is much more than you aware of the problems with calling Austrian emporers "German Monarchs".

The problem is the semantic distinction between "German Monarchs" (which the Austrians had not been) and "Monarchs in Germany/Monarchs in Germanspeaking Countries". Thats a big difference!

So the problem with the template is, that it symplifies things in a way that they cannot be simplified. Therefore it should be deleted (like Wirthi said) or it must be limited to the period of the German Empire starting from 1871.

I will not react to stupid words like "vandalize" as I try to discuss a serious topic of Austro-German history here, and personally it seems to me that Charles doesnt have enough knowledge about this complicated relation while Louis88 is quite aware about this but has maybe a different point of view.

-- Rfortner 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Overestimate my role? You severely overestimate your own authority in unilaterally declaring what is acceptable and what is not. I explained that perhaps the title of the template it not entirely appropriate. To many, these varying confederations and political entities are successor states of one another that lead to the eventual formation of Germany. A template from 1871 onward does nothing as the information is already presented in the article German Empire. The template, in the meantime, serves to link these states/entities (which did not exist concurrently) about should remain intact until it is or is not deleted. Charles 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles lets stay on the facts. I have allready presented my facts above, where are yours?

In addition to all the facts listed above: I allready told Louis88 on his talk-page, that its not possible to put the German Empire on the same level as some (con-)federations which had existed before and where the participating countries and their borders where changing many times between 1806 and 1871. While the Austrian Empire had been founded in 1804 (by a strongly centralised administration), the great number of "indipendent" German countries still kept their "Federalism". There is a German term for this exagerated federalism: Deutsche Kleinstaaterei (de:Kleinstaaterei). It was the Prussian chanceler Bismark wo ended this by building the German Empire in 1871, with treaties as well as with military force.

So before the founding of the German Empire you cannot limit Germany in a clear way and you cannot say who was the leading Monarch. For example the Rheinbund was only a cooperation of the Western-German-Countries (and Napoleon had forced them to do so), so why should this be on the same level as the German Empire which had been a real unified state? Only the Norddeutscher Bund can - in some way - be put in the same level as it was the "birthplace" of the German Empire. But even at this time there had been indipendent states like the Kingdom of Bavaria, so how can you speak about a German "Monarch" at this time? Because the Prussian Monarch was not "over" the Bavarian Monarch before 1871! So please dont try to symplify things in a way that they cannot be simplified. To be serious the template would have to include a lot more Monarchs before 1871 ;-)

Last point, as you say: "these varying confederations and political entities are successor states of one another that lead to the eventual formation of Germany": Sorry, but the German (Con-)Federation was ruled by Austrian Emporers and was therefore also am important part of the Austrian history. And it was a loose confederation, nothing more, due to the Deutsche Kleinstaaterei. So once again: Dont simplify things in a way where they lead to wrong interpretations of history, thats not appropiate for Wikipedia and therefore this template in its current status is - simply - wrong.

So: I brought you so many facts about all of this above, I even brought you some links (read Unification of Germany !!!). I havent seen a lot of arguments by you, and Louis88 never responded on this page in English. So how to go on now? Interested in a serious discussion to find a concens to change the template in a correct way before discussing a deletion? -- Rfortner 23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since more than 24 hours there has been no response to the arguments that I brought here. Louis88, the creator of this template also never responded to those arguments HERE and didnt bring any facts do defend his template. Therefore I adapted the template by limiting it to those Monarchs of Germany where this template-title is appropiate, even when it is not fully clear for the time of the Norddeutscher Bund (before 1871) where southern germanspeaking countries (like Bavaria) where still indipendent. -- Rfortner 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles, please bring arguments and facts before reverting again! I have brought mine here, so factual your opinion is POV. Also Louis88 never came here to defend his template. So stop starting an edit war without bringing facts and arguments into the discussion. -- Rfortner

You were wrong to revert it in the first place. It is not Louis88's template. There is no ownership here. I said the template might have to be renamed. Leave it intact until then and cease your pathetic vandalism. Charles 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

When you allready realised that it has to be renamed, how long do you want to wait? One month, one year? Dont be polemic and dont call my changings "vandalism" or "POV" as I have brought detailed arguments. Give us (the interested users) an outlook how you want to deal with this problem and how the renaming or limiting to the period from 1871 will be done. Its also not YOUR template, so stop fighting for it like a mother for her child, thats not appropiate for a serious encyclopadie! And dont let wrong information in Wikipedia in the meanwhile. FIRST think what is appropiate (and correct), and THEN put it in here, not the other way arround! Wiki is (as far as I know) not a testfield for dubious historical theories -- Rfortner 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of that matter is that it is you saying it is wrong when others can reasonably assess it as right or at least salvageable. Things are not changed only to discuss a different version of changes. It should be intact as is until renamed or tweaked. As it stands, the progression of monarchs makes sense in terms history (the transition from the Holy Roman Empire to the German Empire). It isn't dependent upon the other independent countries because they were not united into large German confederations. I propose that that template be renamed to reflect the progression from the Holy Roman Empire to the German Empire because it is an observable series of political changes leading from one to the other. So far it seems you only object to the use of the word "German". These all, however, refer to German lands... These are not dubious historical theories, these are facts. Charles 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to repeat myself here allways. As you say in your own words, there was a complex transformation process and till 1871 there existed no clearly defined Germany. And dont missinterpret the role of the Holy Roman Empire (HRR): The HRR was just a loose federation of germanspeaking indipendent states, like the EU today, nothing more (thats why in the end it was so easy to give it up). And there have been TWO national states coming out of the HRR: Austria (in 1804) and Germany (in 1871). So please respect that this complex transformation is to complex to simplify it in the little box as this template compares apples and oranges! -- Rfortner 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not twist my words. My own words do not say it was complex. The Confederation of the Rhine (the remants of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) leads to the German Confederation which leads to the North German Confederation which leads to the German Empire. These are bodies of German states. I am not saying they were Germany, but they were German. Whether they were loose federations or iron tight, they were collections of German states under presidents, emperors, etc. This doesn't really concern the fact that eventually there was Austria and Germany. That is your agenda. Charles 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But it was complex, obviously more complex than you realise. What about the other german states, for example: What about Bavaria? They also wont like what you do to German history ;-) -- Rfortner 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They were outside of the organized German states. For instance, compare a template of Canadian prime ministers (if one exists). Does it matter that Newfoundland was not part of Canada until the 1940s? No. The fact of the matter is that Bavaria was later added in, but it's previous exclusion doesn't preclude the existence of a German state or confederation, not matter how loose it is deemed. Charles 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But there was no Germany before 1871! -- Rfortner 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was... Charles 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With your unappropiate comparison with Canada you did. Once again: Please learn a little bit more about German history and first of all you should read Unification of Germany, this will explain to you the "magic date" of 1871 and why everything before was not compareable to the German Empire. As I said: the template currently compares apples and oranges, and I dont understand why you fight so much for this when you dont even know all about Austro-German history during and after the ending of the HRR? -- Rfortner 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My comparison to Canada was in response to your mention of the exclusion of Bavaria. The article Unification of Germany tells me that the North German Confederation was a direct precursor to the German Empire and that the North German Confederation was assembled from states of the German Confederation. The German Confederation was made up of more or less the same states as the Confederation of the Rhine. That establishes the transformation of most of the Confederation of the Rhine to the German Confederation. Clear? Okay. The article you cite makes it clear that the North German Confederation follows the German Confederation. Clear still? Alight. It also states that the North German Confederation was a direct precursor to the German Empire. Thus, it is established:

Confederation of the Rhine → German Confederation → North German Confederation → German Empire

Voila! Each of these bodies had a representative leader or monarch at the top. Thus the template is appropriate, even if the title is not. It isn't a comparison of everything before to the German Empire. It leads up to the German Empire. Charles 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Only the Norddeutscher Bund (North German Confederation if you dont speak German) was a more or less direct precursor of the German Empire, but even at the same time there were indipendent germanspeaking states. But your sentence "The German Confederation was made up of more or less the same states as the Confederation of the Rhine" is once again a nonsense which shows that you dont know much about German history of that time. Try to find a map of both federations and you will see the differences. Also before the German Empire, those federations had been loose federations with some military agreements, but not states or Empires. But its quite hard to discuss with you as you dont want to follow simple arguments and still try to prove that you are right. Seems to be a question of pride? I have seen other quarrels that you had here, even some demandings for mediation mentioned on your talk-page. Can you accept facts and opinions from other people? -- Rfortner 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did look at the maps and the bulk of the states of the Confederation of the Rhine became states of the German confederation. In the series of the History of Germany, these entities are listed one after another. The demand for mediation was by a POV-pushing user who has been brought to task by a number of other editors, not just me. Indeed, the mediation was rejected because it was groundless. I can accept facts. I never said that the Confederation of the Rhine was a direct precursor to the German Empire and I didn't even say that the German Confederation was a direct precursor to the German Empire. They all fall in line though, as precursors to one another. Charles 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As you say in your own words, the have not been direct precursors. It is right, that somehow one thing leaded to another, but not in a direct way and there had been a lot of countries involved and there were a lot of intermediate steps. Between 1806 and 1871 things changed frequently: Wars where taking place and borders where moved like figures in a chess-game (e.g. between Bavaria and Salzburg), the indipendent german states joined a union of other german states and then their composition changed (of the unions and of the states). Federations where founded and given up, and the Congress of Vienna in 1814/1815 redraw the map of Europe again. And till 1871 the states prefered to be "indipendent" while Austria was (since 1804) ONE unified empire, so till 1871 there was the Kleinstaaterei. Each of this different federations had its own rules, but they cannot be compared to a unified State or Empire. Se the following section from Unification of Germany which shows how indipendent the states where before 1871: The Kingdom of Prussia was the largest of the constituent states, covering some 60 percent of the territory of the German Empire. Before being annexed and turned into Provinces of Prussia, several of these states had gained sovereignty following the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, or been created as sovereign states after the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

And the Deutscher Bund was more or less a loose Federation of the "big" states Prussia and Austria and "the rest". The contribution of the Austrian Empire to the Deutscher Bund was quite widespread, so when talking about the Deutscher Bund you cannot hide Austria. So when you see the template as a template for the History of the Development of the German Empire, than you have to name it like this and everything is quite fine (but you still have to take in account IN the template that the Deutscher Bund had a special role and only a part of it was later German Empire while the other part was allready Austria. Not so with the Rheinbund, as it consisted of states who joined the later German Empire). But one cannot name this a history of German Monarchs, thats a false simplification. So with the template-name mentioned above you even can let the template at the articles about Austrian Emperors, as they had played an important role on the way to unifie the other germanspeaking countries, even when militarised Prussia profited from this in the end ;-) But in spite of everything they have not been German Monarchs, as each of the indipedent germanspeaking states hat its own Provinzkaiser (german jesting word for provincial "emperor") and most of this proud states wouldnt have accepted to give to much of their power to a loose federation, so Prussia had to force some of them with military force. -- Rfortner 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"But there was no Germany before 1871" <-- LOL. Anyway, seeing that Franz II used the style Germaniae Rex until 1806 (as had been done since the 16th century), he can probably be considered a "German monarch" afterwards. Austria was in the German confederation, thus its monarch should be in the list of German monarchs. --SKopp 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you missunderstood what Louis88 & Charles wanted to say with the template: They didnt put Austrian Emperors in the template because Austria was in the Deutscher Bund (a loose confederation, nothing more), but they put them there because Austria had the "Presidency" in the Deutscher Bund. So you should discuss with the others what the template really means, but as you see by yourself: It is full of missinterpretation ;-) ... Once again: Just because Austrian emperors had the "presidency" in the Deutscher Bund, they still where Emperors of Austria and not Emperors of Germany, as a "National State" (or Empire) of Germany didnt exist before 1871 (Something that you missunderstood in my earlier posting). -- Rfortner 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Move of template

In consideration of all the arguments that we have been discussing here (and the reverts that have been taking place) during the last week I have now moved the template to "Evolution of the German Empire 1806-1918". This is the most correct title for the facts that are simplified in the template. By doing so, we avoid to limit it to the period starting from 1871 (what Louis88 didnt want to do), but we also avoid a request for deletion of the whole template. I hope we can agree on this concensus, as even Charles has mentioned the "renaming"-possibilitie in the discussion above. ... The only problem I still have is a layout problem, as (on my screen) the Headline looks awfull. How does it come? -- Rfortner 18:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)