I picked up a book called Danubia last week. It's been kind of fun. The author is a bit quirky, I'm not sure I'd agree with his assessment of places he's visited. I also am pretty sure he's glossing over the history tremendously, but I think he had to in order to fit it into a short and readable book.
I enjoy coming across places I've actually been, courtesy of a trip I took along the Danube back in 2011. Bratislava? Melk Abbey? Budapest? Prague? It adds something to know I've been to the places he's talking about. Plus I learned about things I just flat out didn't know. (Bear moats?!? That was a thing?!?)
But that's not why I'm writing a post now. I'm writing...because books like this make me realize just how little I actually know about history. That, and I wonder about how we all form our own identities. Why didn't the Hapsburg lands ever become Hapsburgia?
To start it off right, though, I suppose I ought to sum up some of what I've already learned.
I went to a pretty decent school in the US, and I'm only beginning to realize just how little it actually covered. Not, I think, because our classes are bad. It's just...there's a lot of history to cover. And some of it just doesn't seem relevant to us. I met a German woman who had come over to the States on a cultural exchange, and she pointed out that in Germany you can't study German history without learning a lot about European history as well. It's too connected. Here, however, we can have a whole year dedicated to US history and hardly touch on anything else. In retrospect, our history focused mostly on England, France, Spain, and maybe a little bit about the rest of Europe when we studied World War I and II. (So yes - most Americans don't realize just how much Russia helped win World War II. We just know that the Cold War started before it had completely finished.)
I'm exaggerating. Slightly. I did learn a bit about the Moors, and Spain, but that was because my high school Spanish class showed us a clip from a move on El Cid.
If I went into all the things I've learned about history since, this post would get too long...and probably bore even more than most. So I'll focus more on Europe.
I took a class in college on European history from 1815 to the present. I remember realizing just how much colonialism was to blame, as almost every hot spot in the world was tied to the mess left behind.
After 9/11 I delved more into Middle Eastern history. A chance remark about central Europe (and my own trip to Afghanistan) had me looking at some of the history there, as well. I'm about halfway through the Baburnama, for example. And read a book a few years back discussing the history After Tamerlane.
The things I've learned have come in drips and drabs, as curiosity has struck. I might read up on the last empress of China, pick up a book on Pablo Escobar, whatever strikes my fancy.
So to bring this to a point - I didn't realize until that trip to the Danube just how little I knew about the Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs. I vaguely knew about Charlemagne, though I associated him with France more than Germany. I knew that Hitler called his empire the Third Reich because it was supposed to be the third empire...but I was kind of fuzzy on which ones he was referring to and when.
I recognized the Hapsburg name, mostly as an aristocratic family that married into a lot of families. I had no idea that Phillip II was a Hapsburg, and notionally controlled the Netherlands, until I was reading up on it for something else. (The Netherlands were controlled by Spain? Really? Except it wasn't really Spain at the time, was it?)
Yes, I also vaguely remember hearing that nationalism didn't matter, that nobility often did not come from the same background as their subjects, and that it took a while to get the European nations we know today. Spain wasn't always Spain, and it wasn't just the wedding of Ferdinand and Isabella that united them. The history of Sicily just plain astounds me. The Athenians tried invading? Vikings? Wth?!? Southern Italy for that matter, as well.
I knew that Germany and Italy took longer to become 'a nation' than the rest of Europe.
I knew about the Hundred Years' war between France and England, though I didn't realize how much of it was tied to the fact that the English king was also a vassal to the French king in his secondary role. Made it sound less like the clash of competing nationalities and more like some sort of family quarrel.
I also read an excellent book that described how France formed a national identity, and was shocked to realize how much village patois and differences challenged that. Right up until World War I, even. Their obsession with keeping the French language pure suddenly made some sort of sense, at least.
So anyways. I've picked up little bits of history here and there, and somehow never really understood the role of the Hapsburgs...and the history played out on the frontier between their empire and the Ottoman empire.
And it kind of fascinates me to ask - why didn't their lands ever form a nation and identity like Spain, Germany, France, etc? What is this magical formula that creates a sense of identity, as a people? Why did Portugal end up it's own separate country with it's own separate language, whereas Catalonia didn't?
You can ask this question about practically every country today. When did Americans stop being colonials? Stop caring more about being Virginian, or from Maryland, and start thinking of themselves as American?
I ask these questions, knowing there's an entire iceberg underneath, and a ton of academics who are already exploring those questions. There's good and bad, you see, to having that sort of identity. The sense of nationhood that can bring everyone together is the exact same thing used to persecute the 'other'. Those who are 'not like us'.
Somewhere along the way our ideas of what was acceptable changed, too. We're horrified now by actions that, honestly, are exactly what rulers in the far distant past did.
It seems like the usual conflict between centrifugal and centripetal social forces. There's advantages to acting as one large country, there's strength in numbers and resources. And there are disadvantages, particularly if one group is trying to impose on or control another. (As nationalism took root, many groups that are minorities in one country start to feel like they will always be second class citizens unless they can have their own country. So there's pressure to create Catalonia, Kurdistan, to 'balkanize' a region, etc. and so on and so forth.)
It's enough to make you think we should just give everyone their own nation...except history is so full of migrations and conquest that it's practically impossible to sort everyone out.
Which means practically every major nation has to figure out how to lead a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state.
A multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state like the Hapsburgs...except look what happened to them.
I enjoy coming across places I've actually been, courtesy of a trip I took along the Danube back in 2011. Bratislava? Melk Abbey? Budapest? Prague? It adds something to know I've been to the places he's talking about. Plus I learned about things I just flat out didn't know. (Bear moats?!? That was a thing?!?)
But that's not why I'm writing a post now. I'm writing...because books like this make me realize just how little I actually know about history. That, and I wonder about how we all form our own identities. Why didn't the Hapsburg lands ever become Hapsburgia?
To start it off right, though, I suppose I ought to sum up some of what I've already learned.
I went to a pretty decent school in the US, and I'm only beginning to realize just how little it actually covered. Not, I think, because our classes are bad. It's just...there's a lot of history to cover. And some of it just doesn't seem relevant to us. I met a German woman who had come over to the States on a cultural exchange, and she pointed out that in Germany you can't study German history without learning a lot about European history as well. It's too connected. Here, however, we can have a whole year dedicated to US history and hardly touch on anything else. In retrospect, our history focused mostly on England, France, Spain, and maybe a little bit about the rest of Europe when we studied World War I and II. (So yes - most Americans don't realize just how much Russia helped win World War II. We just know that the Cold War started before it had completely finished.)
I'm exaggerating. Slightly. I did learn a bit about the Moors, and Spain, but that was because my high school Spanish class showed us a clip from a move on El Cid.
If I went into all the things I've learned about history since, this post would get too long...and probably bore even more than most. So I'll focus more on Europe.
I took a class in college on European history from 1815 to the present. I remember realizing just how much colonialism was to blame, as almost every hot spot in the world was tied to the mess left behind.
After 9/11 I delved more into Middle Eastern history. A chance remark about central Europe (and my own trip to Afghanistan) had me looking at some of the history there, as well. I'm about halfway through the Baburnama, for example. And read a book a few years back discussing the history After Tamerlane.
The things I've learned have come in drips and drabs, as curiosity has struck. I might read up on the last empress of China, pick up a book on Pablo Escobar, whatever strikes my fancy.
So to bring this to a point - I didn't realize until that trip to the Danube just how little I knew about the Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs. I vaguely knew about Charlemagne, though I associated him with France more than Germany. I knew that Hitler called his empire the Third Reich because it was supposed to be the third empire...but I was kind of fuzzy on which ones he was referring to and when.
I recognized the Hapsburg name, mostly as an aristocratic family that married into a lot of families. I had no idea that Phillip II was a Hapsburg, and notionally controlled the Netherlands, until I was reading up on it for something else. (The Netherlands were controlled by Spain? Really? Except it wasn't really Spain at the time, was it?)
Yes, I also vaguely remember hearing that nationalism didn't matter, that nobility often did not come from the same background as their subjects, and that it took a while to get the European nations we know today. Spain wasn't always Spain, and it wasn't just the wedding of Ferdinand and Isabella that united them. The history of Sicily just plain astounds me. The Athenians tried invading? Vikings? Wth?!? Southern Italy for that matter, as well.
I knew that Germany and Italy took longer to become 'a nation' than the rest of Europe.
I knew about the Hundred Years' war between France and England, though I didn't realize how much of it was tied to the fact that the English king was also a vassal to the French king in his secondary role. Made it sound less like the clash of competing nationalities and more like some sort of family quarrel.
I also read an excellent book that described how France formed a national identity, and was shocked to realize how much village patois and differences challenged that. Right up until World War I, even. Their obsession with keeping the French language pure suddenly made some sort of sense, at least.
So anyways. I've picked up little bits of history here and there, and somehow never really understood the role of the Hapsburgs...and the history played out on the frontier between their empire and the Ottoman empire.
And it kind of fascinates me to ask - why didn't their lands ever form a nation and identity like Spain, Germany, France, etc? What is this magical formula that creates a sense of identity, as a people? Why did Portugal end up it's own separate country with it's own separate language, whereas Catalonia didn't?
You can ask this question about practically every country today. When did Americans stop being colonials? Stop caring more about being Virginian, or from Maryland, and start thinking of themselves as American?
I ask these questions, knowing there's an entire iceberg underneath, and a ton of academics who are already exploring those questions. There's good and bad, you see, to having that sort of identity. The sense of nationhood that can bring everyone together is the exact same thing used to persecute the 'other'. Those who are 'not like us'.
Somewhere along the way our ideas of what was acceptable changed, too. We're horrified now by actions that, honestly, are exactly what rulers in the far distant past did.
It seems like the usual conflict between centrifugal and centripetal social forces. There's advantages to acting as one large country, there's strength in numbers and resources. And there are disadvantages, particularly if one group is trying to impose on or control another. (As nationalism took root, many groups that are minorities in one country start to feel like they will always be second class citizens unless they can have their own country. So there's pressure to create Catalonia, Kurdistan, to 'balkanize' a region, etc. and so on and so forth.)
It's enough to make you think we should just give everyone their own nation...except history is so full of migrations and conquest that it's practically impossible to sort everyone out.
Which means practically every major nation has to figure out how to lead a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state.
A multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state like the Hapsburgs...except look what happened to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment