Talk:Battle of Hemmingstedt

Likely translation mistake
"Virgin" is most likely a translation of the German word "Jungfer", which can have different meanings, with the literal translation indeed being virgin, but in a broader sense actually describes an unmarried woman. the equivalent term in English would be "damsel". (If this specific damsel was actually a virgin would be very hard to tell indeed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.137.53 (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Expansion
Note: I am somewhat new here and probably do not understand the conventions too well, feel free to correct me on those things. Apparently there is a similar page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_bei_Hemmingstedt from the German wikipedia, I think that this article may be able to be expanded and maybe corrected (they mention 12.000 men on the Kalmar side), if anyone is fluent enough in German. Just a note since I ran into this during research for worldbuilding.

JavaScriptCoder (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wording
Deleted the word 'pompous' - this is someone's opinion and not fact. Let's stick to the facts. --

I fear the depicturing of "Denmark" as representative for the Bad Guys, and the German peasants as the Good Guys is not only an oversimplification, but a dangerous relict from the times when Nationalism was used as a support for military conquests.

[Your fears are exaggerated. The peasants throughout Europe were engaged in struggle against the feudal system.]

At the moment I haven't checked sufficiently credible sources, but I would suggest that a fair share of the mercenaries actually were Germans (and not Dutch). Further I changed the denotion of the aggressors from "the Danish army" and similar constructs to "the Ducal army". As far as I've learned, the conquest was a result of the Emperor's entfeofment of Dithmarschen to the Dukes of Holstein (or possibly only one of them). In other words: It was primarily an aggression by the "German" Dutchy of Holstein on behalf of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation.


 * Indeed the "Grote Garde" was not Dutch - it only was formed in the area of the Netherlands and fought there for some time, but it came from the remnants of Albrechts army and was in its core German - though it had soldiers from all over Europe. I swapped the entry to "Landsknechts", which fits perfect here. For a more detailed history of that unit and its way through Frisia read Ubbo Emmius ASchudak (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It's of course true that one of the two dukes at the time also was king of Denmark (and briefly acknoledged as King of the Kalmar Union), but I wonder if this isn't stressed far too much in German Nationalist history-writing - particularly from the times before Schleswig and Holstein was conquered by Prussia in 1864.

-- Ruhrjung 23:10 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Dear Ruhrjung, I've already answered on the Dithmarschen talk page, that it has never been my intention to depict Danish as "Bad Guys" and Germans as "Good Guys". Did you see this paragraph:


 * Many details about the battle were made up later in order to heroize the defenders. In 1900 a pompous monument to the defenders was raised. The cult reached its peak in the Nazi era, when local party members misused the names of the battle participants for their propaganda. Today there is a more neutral museum at the site commemorating the battle.


 * That was added by me as well. I regard myself as sensitive to neo-fascist or nationalist descriptions, and you will hardly find them in my articles. If at all, I may have depicted the "little peasants" as GOOD and the "powerful knights" as BAD (what would be POV as well, but I hope, you note the difference). Anyhow, the article as it reads now, includes not any reference to Denmark, what is in contradiction to all sources you can find on the internet. If you write Duke Johann  and Duke Friedrich , it appears to me, that you want to avoid the mention of Denmark at any price. This is at least as unfortunate as the former version of the article. All this happened more than 500 years ago, so it should be possible to call a spade a spade. So I hope, that it will be possible to find a compromise version between yours and mine. And please be a bit more careful with accusing someone of certain intentions - I could take offence. -- Cordyph 07:54 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We are quite obviously pursuing the same interest, namely calling a spade a spade. And the spade here, i.e. the spade I wish to see called, is that the version I learned in school was actually and factually wrong. You have of course no reason to take personal offence. No more than I have had reason to take personal offence those times I've discovered that French and German history writing was different, and that my French collegues and friends were equally believing in what they'd learned as I was.

If virtually a whole nation has learned a factually wrong version, it has of course nothing with neo-fashism to do. As you know, there is an aspect of Nazi usage of historicism to it, but I propose that it might mainly echoe the historical myth-construction of the period between the Napoleonic Wars and 1848. For the reference to all sources on the internet, please remember that I believe both you and me read German and English sources much more accurately than Scandinavian (altough I've studied Swedish and thereby read Danish relatively well, it goes neccessarily slow, ...and accuracy is deficient). Furthermore, as German is a much larger and more widely spread language than Danish it's no surprise if English sources rather build on German than on Danish. The critical question is of course not the number of www-sources repeating a factoid, but what corresponds to the factual reality.

I truly believe that we agree much more than you yet have realized. And I blame myself for my repeated mistake to make you feel personally criticized. (Of course I'd seen the paragraph quoted above. It's quite to my liking.)

There are a couple of questions which I feel to have been mislead on by the version I originally learned in school some 20 years ago:
 * The relation between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein in the 15th century. I've later learned that Denmark seemed to be more influenced by Schleswig-Holstein, than the other way around. Please remember that a Holsteinian dynasty has remained on Denmark's throne since 1448, but that the kingdom was elective, not hereditary, until the 1660s, or something like that.
 * The longlasting conflict between the Hanseatic towns (chiefly Lübeck) and agrarian territories ruled by German nobility, as for instance the Duchy of Schleswig (after 1376) and the County of Holstein (Duchy after 1474).
 * The German Emperor's role. (I'd originally the impression that a Duke of Holstein contributed in the Battle of Hemmingstedt in his capacity as a vassal of the King of Denmark. I've now learned that both Dukes of Holstein led the battle in their capacity as vassals of the German Emperor - and this either after the Emperor's consent or on his initiative. Of course I don't deny or try to hide that one of the Dukes at that time also was king of Denmark and king of the Kalmar Union, which made it easier to call knights to the expedition, but I think it shouldn't be overemphasized. In particular I question why he is to be denoted as King of Denmark when he at the time also was King of Norway and briefly King of Sweden.)
 * The relation between the two Dukes, the younger and the elder. I'd initially the impression that the elder, who at the time also was King outside of the Empire, had taken the initiative. Later I learned it's believed the younger Duke Friedrich had had to persuade the elder Duke Johannes/King Hans.
 * The nationality of the aggressive army. Not that nationality for militaries played any comparable role in the 15th century, but I was brought the false impression that it somehow was wild barbarians from the North, in the succession of the Vikings, who attacked the brave German peasantry. Also this turned out to be entirely false.
 * The annexation of Dithmarschen to Denmark, which as far as I understand in no way can be argued to have taken place before 1848. Dithmarschen was factually annexed to Holstein, parts of which (or whole of which) from time to time was in personal union with Denmark - until 1864.

I hope I hereby have made it somewhat understandable why I belive the leaders of the expedition better are to be denoted Dukes of Holstein with their names spelled in German, which I not yet can see as "at least as unfortunate as the former version of the article." I've worded the corresponding text in the article on Dithmarschen accordingly:


 * In 1500 the greatest of these battles took place, the Battle of Hemmingstedt, where the peasants defeated the largely outnumbering army of Holstein and the Kalmar Union (as one of the two co-Dukes of Holstein also was the King of Denmark). It was not until 1559, that the peasants had to give up their autonomy.


 * The conquerors divided Dithmarschen in two parts: The south became a part of Holstein in personal union with Denmark, the north came in the possession of the other Duke of Holstein. From 1773 all of Holstein was united in personal union with Denmark and remained so until 1864, when Schleswig-Holstein was annexed by Prussia.

Of course I'm prepared to consider other arguments and points of views.

Best regards! -- Ruhrjung 10:18 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "a whole nation has learned a wrong version". Actually, this is a local event, which is almost unknown in most parts of Germany. It is comprehensively described on the official Dithmarschen website, and maybe I was not careful enough and adopted too much of their wording. I just wanted to point out, that it was never intended by me to write about "brave German peasantry" and "barbarians from the North" or similar bullshit. Of course, if someone can interpret the text like this, there might have been something wrong with the text.
 * Anyhow, I will leave your version untouched now. Your argumentation is coherent, and obviously you did much more research on the topic than me. This discussion would have been much quieter and shorter, if I wouldn't have been under the impression, that I must defend myself against reproaches of writing articles in a revanchist way. But maybe, I was misinterpreting you and overreacting.
 * Take care! -- Cordyph 11:01 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Or rather: I wasn't following basic Wikipedia rules on tact and courteousy. :-( -- Ruhrjung 11:50 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Poor Phrasing
Does this line sound really poor to anyone else: These men were a well-armed and well-organized militia, not the desperate, badly armed rabble associated with the term "peasant army". Auto98uk (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)