- -----Original Message-----
From: Kai Beste
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:15 AM


>It might also be interesting to mention that the king of the Holy
>Roman Empire Germany was *elected*.


Since my sent folder reveals I have not climbed onto one of my favorite
hobby horses in a while, I will remind readers that all monarchy is
elective. In some cases the assembly of the electors appears to be
cerimonial, but when succession is cast into doubt, the elective powers
re-assert themselves, such as in France in the early 14th century when the
direct Capetians were extinct and the realm needed to decide which of the
king's relatives succeded him. Likewise in England on several occasions.

>IMC I see the Anuireans as being in the early Renaisance
>technologically, but culturally in the High Middle Ages, since I like
>the feudal system and its feel. I think the HRE makes a great model
>for Anuire, not culturally but politically.
>

I certainly see Anuire as a kind of Holy Roman Empire. Provincial lords out
of control, the lack of an emperor vs the powerless emperor. I carry the
analogy further because I see the Gorgon as the Ottomans. I am remined of
men like Dürer, who campaigned for Germany unity against the Turks. And
Ferdinand, the brother of Charles V, who was not confirmed in any titles,
yet was supposed to unify the German princes against heresy, the Turks, and
France. (It was only after Mohacs that Ferdinand was finally confirmed as
Archuduke of Austria.) The Reich also had a hereditary office like Anuire's
Chamberlain.


>It took a long time until the idea of a national state took
>hold (18 cent.). It was only in 1861 that Germany was defined as a
>national state and reunited.
>
Your definition of nation is different from the one being used in this
context. Probably because you are familiar with the 19th century qualities
of nationalism. The list seems to have stumbled onto an earlier definition
of the word (I am guessing its not the result of early modern research, but
could be wrong).


You may find the following post interesting. It appeared on another list
only days ago.Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:54:09 +0000
From: "Dr. Philipp Ther"

>I have done research about Early Modern Silesia which might be interesting
>for you:
>
>You can find a national consciousness in early modern Silesia. Silesian
>Buergers and some of the Fuersten perceived themselves as Silesians and as
>belonging to the "Silesian nation". This consciousness was stronger among
>the Protestants than among the Catholics but you can find it among both
>confessions. Sourcewise you can trace back this consciousness in
>theoretical writings and in actions taken up by the populace at the
>relevant times. This Silesian consciousness was increasingly politicized
>at the end of the 16th century and at its high point before 1620. One can
>make similar findings in Bohemia and in Moravia, although the importance
>of Buergers as main carriers of the respective national consciousness
>varied.
>
>Despite the many modern characteristics of this pre-modern national
>consciousness (today's regions were referred to as natio), I would not use
>terms such as ethnicity or "cultural difference". The national
>consciousness in the early modern period was hardly cultural or ethnic -
>if we want to put it in these terms - but mostly political. The majority
>of German language historians distinguish between Nationalbewusstsein and
>Nationsbewusstsein. The second term refers to the early modern "nationes"
>which had different characteristics than modern nations. English does not
>offer this distinction, so there is little alternative to term national
>consciousness. Nevertheless, once this term is used for the early modern
>period, one has to keep in mind the different character of early modern
>nations.

So I could see a place (esp among certain classes) for an Avanese
consciousness, for instance.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net