[Dustin Faulkner]

Hello Everyone:

I am generally aware of the fact that some nations of Europe did not exist during medieval and rennaisance times as we know them today. For example: there was no Germany or Italy yet. I don't think the eastern european nations existed yet either except Poland - a much larger Poland. Even Burgundy was seperate from France at one time.

However, regions like "Germania" and the Italian city-states were distinct from England, France, Portugal, and Spain. How? Was it simply by language and culture? Still ... how much did a Milanese have in common with a Florencian (?), a Venetian, or a Roman given the fact ruling families (like the Medicis) exerted their own power & culture over a region? How much did a Dresdener have in common with a Nuremberger? Did German city-states ever fight each other like the Italian ones did?

With regards to the Germanic people, how did the Austrians and the Swiss eventually become distinct from the Germans? After all, you hear about the Swiss pikemen - not German pikemen. I fear that's a big question. I assume it pertains to the period being discussed. Were Norway, Sweden, and Finland seperate yet (if they were ever one entity)?

I can't imagine how complicated diplomacy must have been back then. I get the impression you needed a diplomat not for each country like today, but for each city-state or guild or duchy or kingdom or principality. In a hypothetical sense, was France ever allied with one Italian city-state, but enemies with another? Could England have been allied with Saxony, but have nothing to do with Bavaria? There was also the Catholic Church as its own political entity.

Please pardon my ignorance of this part of history. My basic inquiry is that eventhough Germany and Italy (and a few other countries) did not exist as we know them today, did they have enough cultural commonalities then that eventually "coalesced" them into the countries we know now, or did such factors exist at a later time? Did germanic regions have enough in common that "Germans" and Swiss would have helped the Austrians defend Vienna from the Muslims?

Just wondering. We tend to focus on weapons on this website (naturally), but I am curious about the geopolitical landscape our revered kings and knights lived in too. For example: what were other monarchs thinking during the wars of the Italian city-states? Did England's war of the roses matter to the Hapsburgs, Spain, France, or the Church? Just curious.

I thought this could begin an interesting and very different discussion while I was driving to work trying to tolerate what passes for music on the radio today.

Danke,
Dustin Faulkner

[Blaz Berlec]

An interesting question, and tough to answer quickly.

The problem is that our "history" (as study of the past) is largely founded on the 19th century scholars. And that was the time of "nation states" and rising nationalisms. Consider this Wikipedia quote:

[Paul Hansen]

I agree with Blaz that from an individual's perspective, loyalty was limited to a rather small area: either a city, a monastery or a local lord. According to the feudal system, that city or lord owed allegiance to a slightly greater area, like a county, duchy or bishopric. This would likely be the largest extent that most people would experience in their lives. Geographical and cultural closeness also created intense hatred in some instances. This was by no means limited to Italy.

If you look at it from the other way, top-down if you will, a king's power would for a large part be based on the loyalty of his retainers: the dukes and counts. The HRE was notoriously decentralized: many counts had considerable leeway in following their own plans. But other kingdoms may have likewise been not very centralized at various points of history (for instance, the relationship between France and Burgundy).

It's a very complicated topic... Perhaps a good way to get somewhat of a feel for (even though it's by no means perfect) is to play the computer game "Crusader Kings".