German mediatisation
German mediatisation (English:
In the strict sense of the word, mediatisation consists in the subsumption of an
The mass mediatisation and secularisation of German states that took place at the time was not initiated by Germans. It came under relentless military and diplomatic pressure from
Background
Although most of its neighbors coalesced into relatively centralized states before the 19th century, Germany did not follow that path. Instead, the Holy Roman Empire remained a feudal patchwork comprising "polyglot congeries of literally hundreds of nearly sovereign states and territories ranging in size from considerable to minuscule".[3] From a high of nearly four hundred – 136 ecclesiastical and 173 secular lords plus 85 free imperial cities – on the eve of the Reformation, this number had only reduced to a little less than 300 by the late-18th century.[note 2] The traditional explanation for this fragmentation (Kleinstaaterei) has focused on the gradual usurpation by the princes of the powers of the Holy Roman Emperor during the Staufen period (1138–1254), to the extent that by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Emperor had become a mere primus inter pares. In recent decades, many historians have maintained that the fragmentation of Germany – which began as a large polity while its neighbors started small – can be attributed to the geographical extent of the Empire – its German part being about twice the size of the realm controlled by the king of France in the second half of the 11th century – and to the vigor of local aristocratic and ecclesiastical rule from early on[when?] in the medieval era. Already in the 12th century, the secular and spiritual princes did not regard themselves as the Emperor's subordinates, still less his subjects, but as rulers in their own right - and they jealously defended their established sphere of predominance.[4] At the time of Emperor Frederick II's death in 1250, it had already been decided[by whom?] that the regnum Teutonicum was "an aristocracy with a monarchical head".[5]
Among those states and territories, the ecclesiastical principalities were unique to Germany. Historically, the
Secularisation
Early secularisations
Having to face the territorial expansionism of the increasingly powerful secular princes, the position of the prince-bishops became more precarious with time. In the course of the Reformation, several of the bishoprics in the north and northeast were secularized, mostly to the benefit of Protestant princes. In the later sixteenth century the
Due to the traumatic experience of the Thirty Years' War and in order to avoid a repetition of this catastrophe, the German rulers great or small were now inclined to value law and legal structures more highly than ever before in the history of the Empire. This explains in good part why medium and small states, both ecclesiastical and secular, were able to survive and even prosper in the vicinity of powerful states with standing armies such as Brandenburg/Prussia, Bavaria and Austria.[10]
18th-century secularisation plans
While no actual secularisation took place during the century and a half that followed the Peace of Westphalia, there was a long history of rumors and half-baked plans on possible secularisations. The continued existence of independent prince-bishoprics, an anomalous phenomenon unique to the Holy Roman Empire, was increasingly considered an anachronism especially, but not exclusively, by the Protestant princes, who also coveted these defenceless territories. Thus, secret proposals by Prussia to end the
Impact of the French Revolution
By the late 18th century, the continued existence of the Holy Roman Empire, despite its archaic constitution, was not seriously threatened from within its limits. An external factor – the French Revolution and the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte – would bring about its demise.[citation needed]
After Revolutionary France had declared war on Prussia and Austria in April 1792, its armies had invaded and eventually consolidated their hold over the Austrian Netherlands and the rest of the left bank of the Rhine by the end of 1794. By then, the French leaders had already resolved more or less openly to annex those lands to the Republic as soon as circumstances permitted. Persuading the German states and princes that were fated to lose their possessions west of the Rhine to come to terms with what amounted to massive French spoliation of German land by compensating the princes with land on the right bank became a constant objective of the French revolutionaries and later Napoleon Bonaparte. Moreover, given that Catholic and Protestant Germany were both implacable enemies of the atheistic French Republic since the secular state had outlawed independent, non state sanctioned houses of worship but had actually provided the first cause of war between France and the Holy Roman Empire through actions such as allowing refugees and exiled French nobles and commoners to carry on counterrevolutionary activities from their land, the French leaders estimated that both church and secular rulers – who collectively were the ones who were losing the most on the left bank – should be excluded from any future compensation. On the other hand, the secular rulers entitled to compensation should be compensated with "secularized", in fact the dissolution and appropriation of church lands similar to the English state dissolution of the monasteries during the reformation, ecclesiastical land and property located on the right bank.[14][15] Ironically the stated democratic dissolution and appropriations of church institutions and resources effectively liquidated Europe's only social safety set and charity. Secularization would lead to western Europe's inability to cope with the second phase of the industrial era and the mass poverty it would create in turn leading to mass immigration off the continent to the new world.[citation needed]
Already, the Franco-Prussian Treaty of Basel of April 1795 spoke of "a compensation" in case a future general peace with the Holy Roman Empire surrendered to France the German territories west of the Rhine, including the Prussian provinces. A secret Franco-Prussian convention signed in August 1796 specified that such a compensation would be the Prince-Bishopric of Münster and Vest Recklinghausen.[16] In addition, Article 3 of the convention provided that the Prince of Orange-Nassau, dynastically related to the king of Prussia, who actively defended his interests, would be compensated with the Prince-Bishoprics of Würzburg and Bamberg if his loss of the Dutch hereditary stadtholdership, which followed the creation of the French-backed Batavian Republic, was to become permanent.[17] Likewise, the peace treaties France signed with Württemberg and Baden the same month contained secret articles whereby France committed to intercede to obtain the cession of specific ecclesiastical territories as their compensation in case their losses became permanent.[18]
Signed in the wake of major French victories over the Austrian armies, the Treaty of Campo Formio of October 1797, dictated by General Bonaparte, provided that Austria would be compensated for the loss of the Austrian Netherlands and Austrian Lombardy with Venice and Dalmatia. A secret article, not implemented at the time, added the Archbishopric of Salzburg and a portion of Bavaria as additional compensation. The treaty also provided for the holding of a congress at Rastatt where delegates of the Imperial Diet would negotiate a general peace with France. It was widely and correctly anticipated that France would demand the formal cession of the entire west bank, that the dispossessed secular princes be compensated with ecclesiastical territories east of the Rhine, and that a specific compensation plan be discussed and adopted.[19][20] Indeed, on 9 March 1798, the delegates at the congress at Rastatt formally accepted the sacrifice of the entire left bank and, on 4 April 1798, approved the secularisation of all the ecclesiastical states save the three Electorates of Mainz, Cologne and Trier, whose continued existence was an absolute red line for Emperor Francis II.[21] The congress, which lingered on well into 1799, failed in its other goals due to disagreement among the delegates on the repartition of the secularized territories and insufficient French control over the process caused by the mounting power struggle in Paris.[citation needed]
In March 1799, Austria, allied with Russia, resumed the war against France. A series of military defeats and the withdrawal of Russia from the war forced Austria to seek an armistice and, on 9 February 1801 to sign the Treaty of Lunéville which mostly reconfirmed the Treaty of Campo Formio and the guidelines set at Rastatt.[22] Article 7 of the treaty provided that "in conformity with the principles formally established at the congress of Rastatt, the empire shall be bound to give to the hereditary Princes who shall be dispossessed on the left bank of the Rhine, an indemnity, which shall be taken from the whole of the empire, according to arrangements which on these bases shall be ultimately determined upon."[23] This time, Francis II signed the treaty not only on Austria's behalf but also on behalf of the Empire, which officially conceded the loss of the Austrian Netherlands and the left bank of the Rhine.[24]
Debate on compensation and secularisation
The sudden realization in the wake of Campo Formio that the Empire was on the threshold of radical changes initiated a debate on the issues of compensation and secularisation conducted in pamphlets, in the press, in the political correspondence within and amongst the territories and at the Imperial Diet.[25] Among other arguments, the defenders of the ecclesiastical states insisted that it was fundamentally illegal and unconstitutional to dissolve any imperial estates, and that the notion of compensating rulers for lost territory was contrary to all past treaties, where "each had to bear his own fate". They contended that even if circumstances now made it necessary, the amount of compensation should be limited to the amount of territory, or income, lost, and that all the Estates of the Empire, and not just the ecclesiastical states, should bear the burden. They warned that a complete secularisation would be such a blow to the Empire that it would lead to its demise.[25][26] Generally, the proponents of secularisation were less vocal and passionate, in good part because they realized that the course of events was in their favor. Even when they were in agreement with some of the anti-secularisation arguments, they contended that Notrecht (the law of necessity) made secularisation unavoidable: the victorious French unequivocally demanded it and since peace was essential to the preservation of the state, sacrificing part of the state to preserve the whole was not only permissible but necessary.[27] For its part, Austria was to be consistently hostile to secularisation, particularly in its wholesale form, since it realized it had more to lose than to gain from it as it would result in the disappearance of the ecclesiastical princes and prelates from the Imperial Diet and the loss of their traditional support for the Emperor.[28] Likewise, the Electors of Hanover and Saxony opposed the principles of compensation and secularization, not out of sympathy for the Catholic Church, but because they feared it would lead to the aggrandizement of Prussia, Austria and Bavaria.[25]
Final Recess of February 1803
The Final Recess of the Imperial Deputation (German: Reichsdeputationshauptschluss) of 25 February 1803 is commonly referred to as the Imperial law that brought about the territorial restructuring of the Empire by subsuming the church states and imperial cities to larger secular imperial estates. In reality, neither the Final Recess nor the Imperial Deputation which drafted it played a significant role in the process since many decisions had already been made in Paris before the Deputation began its work. The Final Recess was nevertheless indispensable in lending a constitutional imprimatur on territorial remapping and the granting and denial of obligations and prerogatives that would otherwise have lacked legitimacy.[citation needed]
Background
Hard pressed by Bonaparte, now firmly at the helm in France as First Consul, the Empire was obliged soon after Lunéville to take on the task of drafting a definitive compensation plan (Entschädigungsplan). The Imperial Diet resolved to entrust that task to the Emperor, as plenipotentiary of the Empire, while it intended to reserve the final decision to itself. Not wanting to bear the full onus of the changes that were bound to occur under French diktat, Francis II declined. After months of deliberations, a compromise was reached in November 1801 to delegate the compensation task to an Imperial Deputation (Reichsdeputation), with France to act as 'mediator'. The Deputation consisted of the plenipotentiaries of the Electors of Mainz, Saxony, Brandenburg/Prussia, Bohemia and Bavaria, and of the Duke of Württemberg, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel and the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order.[29][30]
Soon after Lunéville, the key German rulers entitled to compensation moved quickly to secure their compensation directly with France, and Paris was soon flooded with envoys bearing shopping lists of coveted territories. The French government encouraged the movement.
Frantic discussions and dealings went on simultaneously in Regensburg, where the Imperial Diet and its Deputation were in session. In particular, many mid and lower ranking rulers who lacked influence in Paris – the dukes of Arenberg, Croy and Looz, the prince of Salm-Kyrburg, the counts of Sickingen and Wartenberg, among others – tried their chances with the French diplomats posted at Regensburg, who could recommend additions or amendments to the general compensation plan, generally in exchange for bribes.[note 5][37] Nevertheless, all claims were examined and there was an effort to detect fictitious or exaggerated claims. The Imperial Deputation very seldom examined the claims and grievances, which were almost automatically transferred to the local French officials for decision or referral to Talleyrand in Paris.[38][39]
General compensation plan
A "general compensation plan" combining the various formal and informal accords concluded in Paris was drafted by Talleyrand in June 1802, approved by Russia with minor changes,[40] and submitted almost as an ultimatum to the Imperial Deputation when it finally convened at Regensburg for its first meeting on 24 August 1802. It was stated in the preamble that the mediating Powers had been forced to come up with a compensation plan due to the "irreconcilable differences between the German Princes" regarding the details of compensation, and the Imperial Deputation's delay in starting its work. It was said that the plan, "based on calculations of unquestionable impartiality" endeavored to effect compensation for recognized losses while “maintaining the pre-war balance of power between the key German rulers", two goals that were somewhat contradictory.[41]
As Austria had been excluded from the discussions, its envoy at Paris only learned of the plan when he read it in Le Moniteur. He swiftly negotiated revisions which confirmed both Francis II's Imperial prerogatives and his rights as ruler of Austria. The Habsburgs' compensation package was also augmented with additional secularized bishoprics.[42] Francis II had been hostile to secularisation, but once it became clear that near complete secularisation was unavoidable, he fought as hard as any other ruler to obtain his share of former church states. He was particularly adamant that his younger brother Ferdinand, who had been dispossessed of his secundogeniture Grand Duchy of Tuscany by the invading French, be adequately compensated.[citation needed]
The Imperial Deputation, originally entrusted with the compensation process but now reduced to a subordinate role, tended to be seen by the mediating Powers and the key German States as mere constitutional window dressing. This was demonstrated with the Franco-Prussian agreement of 23 May 1802 which, ignoring the Imperial Deputation that has not yet convened, stated that both the King of Prussia and the Prince of Orange-Nassau could take possession of the territories allotted to them immediately after ratification.[43] Two weeks later, the King issued a proclamation listing all the compensation territories awarded to Prussia but he waited until the first week of August 1802 before occupying the bishoprics of Paderborn and Hildesheim and its share of Münster, as well as the other territories that had been allotted to Prussia. The same month, Bavarian troops entered Bamberg and Würzburg a week after Elector Maximilian IV Joseph had written to their respective prince-bishops to inform them of the imminent occupation of their principalities.[44] During the autumn, Bavaria, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Württemberg, and even Austria, proceeded to occupy the prince-bishoprics, imperial abbeys, and free Imperial cities that had been allotted to them. Formal annexation and the establishment of a civil administration usually followed within a few weeks. Such haste was due in good part to the fear that the June plan might not be definitive and therefore it was thought safer to occupy the allotted territories and place everyone before a fait accompli. That strategy was not foolproof however and Bavaria, which had been in occupation of the bishopric of Eichstätt since September, was forced to evacuate it when the Franco-Austrian convention of 26 December 1802 reallocated most of Eichstätt to the Habsburg compensation package.[45] For their parts, the lesser princes and the counts, with little manpower and resources, generally had to wait until the Final Recess was issued before they could take possession of the territories – if any – that were awarded to them as compensation, usually a secularized abbey or one of the smaller imperial cities.[citation needed]
Approval and ratification of the Final Recess
On 8 October 1802, the mediating Powers transmitted to the Deputation their second general compensation plan whose many modifications reflected the considerable number of claims, memoirs, petitions and observations they had received from all quarters. A third plan was transmitted in November and a final one in mid-February 1803. It served as the basis for the Final Recess that the Deputation issued at its 46th meeting on 25 February 1803.[46] The Imperial Diet approved it on 24 March and the Emperor ratified it on 27 April.[31] The Emperor however made a formal reservation with respect to the reallocation of seats and votes within the Imperial Diet. While he accepted the new ten-member College of Electors, which would for the first time have a Protestant majority,[note 6] he objected to the strong Protestant majority within the new College of Princes (77 Protestant vs 53 Catholic votes, plus 4 alternating votes), where traditionally the Emperor's influence had been the most strongly felt, and he proposed religious parity instead.[48] Discussions regarding this matter were still ongoing when the Empire was dissolved in 1806.[citation needed]
Consequences
End of the ecclesiastical principalities
Under the terms of the Final Recess, all the ecclesiastical principalities – archbishoprics, bishoprics and abbeys – were dissolved except for the Archbishopric-Electorate of Mainz, the Teutonic Order and the Order of Malta. Archbishop Karl Theodor von Dalberg of Mainz had salvaged his Electorate by convincing Bonaparte that his position as Imperial Archchancellor was essential to the functioning of the Empire. As much of his Electorate, including the cathedral city of Mainz, had been annexed by France, the archbishopric was translated to Regensburg and augmented with some remnants of the Electorate east of the Rhine, and Wetzlar. Dalberg, who was confirmed as Elector and Imperial Archchancellor and gained the new title of Primate of Germany, was to prove a constant and useful ally of Napoleon during the coming years.[49][50] In addition, under the dogged insistence of the Emperor, the Teutonic Order, whose Grand Master was generally an Austrian archduke, as well as the Knights of St John (Knights of Malta), were also spared and their scattered small domains were augmented with several nearby abbeys. The intent here was to provide livings for some of the 700 noble members of the cathedral chapters whose property and estates had been expropriated when the prince-bishoprics were secularized.[51][52] Some prince-bishoprics were transferred whole to a new owner while others, such as Münster, Trier, Cologne, Würzburg, Augsburg, Freising, Eichstätt, Passau and Constance, were either split between two or several new owners or had some districts or exclaves allotted to different new owners. The substantial property and estates of the bishoprics' cathedral chapters were also expropriated.[citation needed]
The Final Recess detailed the financial and other obligations of the new rulers toward the former rulers, dignitaries, administrators and other civilian and military personnel of the abolished ecclesiastical principalities. The former prince-bishops and prince-abbots remained
End of the free imperial cities
The 51 free imperial cities[note 7] had less to offer in the way of territory (7,365 square kilometres (2,844 sq mi)) or population (815,000) than the ecclesiastical states but the secular princes had long resented the independence of the ones enclaved within their territory. With a few exceptions, they suffered from an even worse reputation of decay and mismanagement than the ecclesiastical states.[54][55]
A few imperial cities had been included in some of 18th century stillborn secularisation plans, chiefly because they were either contiguous to or enclaved within a prince-bishopric targeted for secularisation. While the secret compensation provisions of the treaties of 1796 with Prussia, Baden and Württemberg targeted only ecclesiastical territories, by the time the Congress of Rastatt opened in late 1797, there were widespread rumors about the abolition of at least some cities. Alarmed by such rumors, the imperial cities of the Swabian Circle, where about half of all the imperial cities were located, held a special conference at Ulm in early March 1798 to examine the situation, for which they felt helpless.[56] However, given that it was expected from the start that the handful of the largest and wealthiest cities would maintain their independence, the expected mediatisation of the imperial cities did not raise much public interest.[57] The survival of an imperial city often hung by a thread: while Regensburg and Wetzlar, seats of the Imperial Diet and the Imperial Cameral Tribunal respectively, were still on the short list of imperial cities that were to survive in the June 1802 general compensation plan, they were secularized a few months later in order to beef up the newly created Principality of Aschaffenburg that was to constitute the territorial base of Archbishop von Dalberg, the Imperial Archchancellor. In the end, only Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Frankfurt, Augsburg, and Nuremberg survived mediatisation in 1803.[citation needed]
Assault on the imperial knights and counts
Following the Final Recess, the scattered estates of approximately 300 free
By autumn 1803, the majority of the knightly estates were de facto annexed by their larger neighbors but In January 1804, the seizures were declared illegal by the Emperor Francis II. Although the Emperor was unable to reverse the annexations, the threat of force put a stop to further seizures. Still, this violence was to have grave consequences for the small princes of the Empire. With the effective end of imperial governance following the Treaty of Pressburg in 1805, the violence done unto the knights and counts was extended to these defenseless princes, resulting in a second great mediatisation in 1806.[citation needed]
The formal mediatisation of the imperial knights and counts was legalized by Article 25 of the Treaty of the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbundakte), which sanctioned unilateral action by territorial states.[citation needed]
Compensation
While the original intent had been to compensate the dispossessed secular rulers only for lost territory, that criterion was to be applied only to the minor princes and the counts who sometimes only received an annuity or a territorial compensation so modest that it had to be augmented with an annuity paid by better provisioned princes in order that their total income would not be less than their former income.[note 8]
In the case of the larger states, they generally received more than the territory they had lost. Baden received over seven times as much, Prussia nearly five times. Hanover gained the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück, having lost nothing. The Duchy of Oldenburg received much of the Prince-Bishopric of Münster although it had lost only the income of a toll station, and Austria did well also.[60] In addition, the two Habsburg archdukes who had been dispossessed of their Italian realms (the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Duchy of Modena) were also compensated even though their realms were not part of the Holy Roman Empire. Likewise, the King of Prussia was able to obtain a generous territorial compensation for the dynastically related Prince of Orange-Nassau whose losses had been in the defunct Dutch Republic.[citation needed]
In all, 112 imperial estates disappeared. Apart from the territory ceded to France, their land and properties were distributed among the seventy-two rulers entitled to compensation.[60]
The outcome of the compensation process confirmed by the Final Recess of February 1803 was the most extensive redistribution of property in German history before 1945. Approximately 73,000 km2 (28,000 sq mi) of ecclesiastical territory, with some 2.36 million inhabitants and 12.72 million guildens per annum of revenue was transferred to new rulers.[2]
The position of the established Roman Catholic Church in Germany, the Reichskirche, was not only diminished, but nearly destroyed. The Church lost its crucial constitutional role in the Empire; most of the Catholic universities were closed, as well as hundreds of monasteries and religious foundations. It has been said that the Final Recess of 1803 did to German land ownership what the Revolution had done to France.[61]
Mediatisation from 1806
On 12 June 1806, Napoleon established the Confederation of the Rhine to extend and help secure the eastern border of France. In reluctant recognition of Napoleon's dismemberment of imperial territory, on 6 August 1806, the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II declared the Empire abolished, and claimed as much power as he could retain as ruler of the Habsburg realms. To gain support from the more powerful German states, the former Holy Roman Emperor accepted, and Napoleon encouraged, the mediatisation by those that remained of their minor neighbouring states. Mediatisation transferred the sovereignty of more than 100 small secular states to their larger neighbours, most of whom became founding members of the Confederation in order to participate in the annexations.[citation needed]
Losses | Gains | Net gains | |
---|---|---|---|
Prussia | 2,000 km2 140,000 people |
12,000 km2 600,000 people |
10,000 km2 460,000 people |
Bavaria | 10,000 km2 600,000 people |
14,000 km2 850,000 people |
4,000 km2 250,000 people |
Baden | 450 km2 30,000 people |
2,000 km2 240,000 people |
1,550 km2 210,000 people |
Württemberg | 400 km2 30,000 people |
1,500 km2 120,000 people |
1,100 km2 90,000 people |
Between the
As a result of the Congress of Vienna, only 39 German states remained.[citation needed]
Appendix
Disbursement of the prince-bishoprics and archbishoprics
Awarded to | Mediatized state |
---|---|
France and client states (previously annexed) |
|
Duke of Arenberg
|
|
Archduke of Austria | |
Margrave of Baden |
|
Elector of Bavaria | |
Duke of Croÿ | |
Elector of Hanover
|
|
Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt |
|
Duke of Looz-Corswarem
|
|
Princes of Nassau |
|
Prince of Nassau-Orange-Fulda
|
|
Duke of Oldenburg |
|
King of Prussia | |
Archbishop of Regensburg |
|
Princes of Salm | |
Grand Duke of Salzburg
|
|
Disbursement of the imperial abbeys, convents and provostries
The only ecclesiastical entities in Germany not abolished in 1803 were:
- Teutonic Order (abolished in 1810)
- Knights of St. John(abolished in 1806)
- Archbishopric of Regensburg(abolished in 1805)
Disbursement of the Free Imperial Cities and villages
Awarded to | Mediatized state |
---|---|
France | |
Elector of Bavaria |
|
King of Prussia |
|
Margrave of Baden |
|
Duke of Württemberg | |
Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt | |
Prince of Nassau-Usingen
|
|
Prince of Nassau-Orange-Fulda | |
Prince of Bretzenheim
|
|
Count of Quadt | |
Archbishop of Regensburg |
The only free cities in Germany not abolished in 1803 were:
- Augsburg (annexed to Bavaria 1806)
- Bremen (annexed to France 1811, restored 1814)
- Frankfurt (annexed to Regensburg 1806, restored 1813, annexed to Prussia 1866)
- The Imperial Valley of the Harmersbach (annexed to Baden 1806)
- Hamburg (annexed to France 1811, restored 1814)
- Lübeck (annexed to France 1811, restored 1814, abolished 1937)
- Nuremberg (annexed to Bavaria 1806)
Members of the Imperial Diet mediatised in 1806
States mediatised after 1806
Mediatized by | Date | Mediatized state |
---|---|---|
King of Westphalia | 1807 | |
Grand Duke of Berg | 1808 | |
Kingdom of Württemberg | 1810 |
|
France | 1810 | |
King of Prussia (status quo of 1806 restored) | 1813 |
|
Austria | 1813 | |
Congress of Vienna | 1814 | |
Bavaria | 1814 |
Restored sovereign states
After being abolished or mediatised, very few states were recreated. Those that were included:
- Free City of Bremen
- Free City of Frankfurt
- Free City of Hamburg
- Kingdom of Hanover
- Electorate of Hesse(-Cassel)
- Landgraviate of Hesse-Homburg
- Lordship of In- and Kniphausen
- Free City of Lübeck
- Grand Duchy of Oldenburg
See also
Notes
- ^ In the present context, secularisation means "the transfer (of property) from ecclesiastical to civil possession or use".[1]
- ^ These figures do not include the hundreds of tiny territories of the Imperial Knights, who were immediate vassals of the Emperor - and therefore self-ruling.
- ^ Unlike those, some secularized prince-bishoprics in the north and northeast, such as Brandenburg, Havelberg, Lebus, Meissen, Merseburg, Naumburg-Zeitz, Schwerin and Camin had ceased to exercise independent rights and had effectively become subordinate to powerful neighboring rulers well before the Reformation. Therefore, they had become prince-bishoprics in name only.[7]
- protégé Talleyrand and his underlings who allegedly collected 15 million francs in bribes during the compensation process.[32]
- ^ A letter of Talleyrand to Laforest, the head of the French delegation in Regensburg, alludes to millions being paid by, among others, the three Hanseatic Cities (Hamburg, Lübeck, Bremen) Frankfurt and Württemberg.
- Habsburg dynasty's tenure of the emperorship was not seriously threatened since the Habsburg would control two electoral votes (Bohemia and Salzburg) instead of one (Bohemia), and the key Protestant Electors would effectively neutralize each other: Hanover and Saxony would never contemplate electing a Prussian emperor and vice versa.[47]
- ^ There were also five remaining Reichsdörfer (Imperial Villages), out of more than 200 in the Middle Ages, that had survived precariously under the Emperor's distant protection. Unlike the imperial cities, they were not represented at the Imperial Diet and in the Circles.
- ^ For example, the Count of Metternich received compensation in the form of the Abbey of Ochsenhausen, subject however to the obligation to pay a total of 20,000 Gulden in annual pension to three as part of their compensation package: the Count of Aspremont (850 Gulden), the Count of Quadt (11,000 Gulden) and the Count of Wartenberg (8,150 Gulden).[59]
References
Citations
- ^ Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989)
- ^ a b Whaley, J., Germany and the Holy Roman Empire (1493–1806), Oxford University Press, 2011, vol. 2, p. 620.
- ^ John G. Gagliardo, Germany Under the Old Regime, 1600–1790, Longman Publishing Group, 1991, p. viii)
- ^ Lens Scales, The Shaping of German Identity. Authority and Crisis, 1245–1414, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 71.
- ^ Arnold, Count and Bishop in Medieval Germany. A Study of Regional Power, 1100–1350, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992, pp. 273, 352.
- ^ Arnold, p. 13.
- ^ Whaley, Joachim (2012). Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. Vol. I, Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia. Oxford University Press. p. 89.
- ^ Peter Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806, Studies in European History, Second Edition (2011), pp. 94–95.
- ^ Derek Beales, Prosperity and Plunder. European Catholic Monasteries in the Age of Revolution, 1650–1815, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 59.
- ^ Anton Schindling, "The Development of the Eternal Diet in Regensburg", The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 58, Supplement: Politics and Society in the Holy Roman Empire, 1500–1806 (Dec., 1986), p. S66.
- ^ John Gagliardo, The Holy Roman Empire as Idea and Reality, 1763–1806, Indiana University Press, 1980, p. 196.
- ^ Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, Volume II, The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 376–377.
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 196.
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 209.
- ^ Whaley, vol. II, pp. 566–568.
- ^ Agatha Ramm, Germany 1789–1919. A Political History, Methuen & Co., 1967, p. 43.
- ^ Guillaume de Garden, Histoire générale des traités de paix et autres transactions principales entre toutes les puissances de l'Europe depuis la paix de Westphalie, Volume 5, Paris, Amyot, 1848, pp. 360–361
- ^ Garden, volume 5, pp. 353–357.
- ^ Ramm, p. 43.
- ^ Peter H. Wilson, "Bolstering the Prestige of the Habsburgs: The End of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806", The International History Review, Vol. 28, No. 4 (December 2006), p. 715.
- ^ Gagliardo, pp. 189–190.
- ^ Gagliardo, pp. 191–192.
- ^ "Treaty of Lunéville". napoleon.org. Archived from the original on 9 April 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
- ^ Peter H. Wilson, Bolstering the Prestige of the Habsburgs: The End of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, p. 715.
- ^ a b c Whaley, vol. II, p. 612.
- ^ Gagliardo, Reich and Nation, pp. 206–209, 214–215.
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 214.
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 215.
- ^ Whaley, pp. 618–619.
- ^ Gagliardo, pp. 192–193.
- ^ a b c d Gagliardo, p. 193.
- ^ Manfred Wolf, Die Entschädigung des Herzogs von Croy im Zusammenhang mit der Säkularisierung des Fürstbistums Münster. Archived 2016-03-29 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Whaley, vol. II, pp. 619–620.
- ^ Whaley, vol. II, p. 619.
- ^ Michel Kerautret, Les Allemagnes napoléoniennes. Archived 2016-03-29 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Lars Behrisch, Christian Fieseler, Les cartes chiffrées: l'argument de la superficie à la fin de l'Ancien Régime en Allemagne. Archived 2016-03-30 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Manfred Wolf, pp. 147–153.
- ^ Manfred Wolf, pp. 130–131.
- ^ "Der 24. Februar 1803. Reichsdeputationshauptschluß". landeshauptarchiv.de (in German). Archived from the original on 31 March 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
- ^ Whaley, vol. II, p. 620.
- ^ Guillaume de Garden, Histoire générale des traités de paix et autres transactions principales entre toutes les puissances de l'Europe depuis la paix de Westphalie, Volume 7, Paris, Amyot, 1848, pp. 148–149.
- ^ Wilson, pp. 718–719.
- ^ Garden, vol. 7, p. 143.
- ^ Günter Dippold, Der Umbruch von 1802/04 im Fürstentum Bamberg. Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine, pp. 23–24.
- ^ Garden, vol. 7, p. 231.
- ^ Garden, vol. 7, pp. 200, 238.
- ^ Whaley, vol. II, p. 628–629.
- ^ Garden, vol. 7, pp. 381, 388–389.
- ^ Whaley, 620–621
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 331, note 32
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 194
- ^ Whaley, p. 620
- ^ Dippold, p. 34.
- ^ Wilson, pp. 714–715.
- ^ Gagliardo, pp. 221–222.
- ^ 1802/03 Das Ende der Reichsstädte Leutkirch,Wangen, Isny, Manuskripte der Vorträge Herausgegeben vom Stadtarchiv Leutkirch, 2003, p. 3.
- ^ Gagliardo, p. 221.
- ^ Whaley, p. 626
- ^ Hauptschluß der ausserordentlichen Reichsdeputation vom 25. Februar 1803, §24.
- ^ a b Whaley, vol. II, p. 621.
- ^ Whaley, p. 623.
- ^ See: Erbach Palace
Sources
- German Wikisource has original text related to this article: Hauptschluß der außerordentlichen Reichsdeputation vom 25. Februar 1803 (in German)
- Arenberg, Jean Engelbert. The Lesser Princes of the Holy Roman Empire in the Napoleonic Era. Dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 1950 (later published as Les Princes du St-Empire a l'époque napoléonienne. Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1951).
- Gollwitzer, Heinz. Die Standesherren. Die politische und gesellschaftliche Stellung der Mediatisierten 1815–1918. Stuttgart 1957 (Göttingen 1964)
- Reitwiesner, William Addams. "The Meaning of the Word Mediatized".
- Fabianek, Paul. Folgen der Säkularisierung für die Klöster im Rheinland – Am Beispiel der Klöster Schwarzenbroich und Kornelimünster, 2012, Verlag BoD, ISBN 978-3-8482-1795-3.
External links
- Full text, including the preamble (in German)
- "The full text of the mediatisation" (in German). 25 March 2014of 25 February 1803
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - Report on compensations on which the Final Recess will be based