Talk:History of Schleswig-Holstein

Untitled
The pre-19th century history is quoted with permission from:Sønderjylland - The Duchy of Slesvig

The first sentence there says:
 * The medieval history of Southern Jutland (Danish: Sønder Jylland) is complicated, and the Nationalistic fuss of the 19th century produced some extra confusion. Both pro-Germans and pro-Danes used the history to prove that the Duchy of Slesvig rightfully ought to be a part of Germany - or Denmark - respectively.

There is also the following table:

Cleanup
As Schleswig-Holstein Question, First War of Schleswig and Second War of Schleswig all have their own separate articles, those events do not need to be wordily and detailedly explained here. Here would suffice a concise summary of each of those. If so written, other eras of history of this province won't be dwarfed by that era. 217.140.193.123 7 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, this proposal conforms to common practice for many "History of" articles. Martg76 7 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Removed slander
This text is pro-German and anti-Danish. For starters, I've removed the German expression "Protokoll-König / Protocol-King" which is an old slander against King Christian IX, who claimed the throne of Denmark in complete accordance with Danish law! On the scale of neutrality, that word is just as "neutral" as if somebody replaced all references to "German" or "Germans" with "Nazi" or "butcher". --Valentinian 08:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand this criticism. I am familiar with the term for Christian IX of "Protocol King" and have never heard it used as a slander nor considered it such: I understood it to mean that Christian ascended the throne and was recognized by Europe as king pursuant to the international treaty known as the "Protocol of London". Why is that as offensive as calling a German "Nazi"? Even if it were so, it should not be removed but explained in the context of the article, since Christian IX was referred to by this term in English by some contemporaries and historians. Lethiere 08:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd forgot all about this one, but this word is pretty negatively loaded in Danish history (although my comparison was off the mark). If the article states that German literature refers to him by this "title", then I can buy that solution, but it should also be noted that Danish literature never uses this term. The problem is that Christian's rivals, the Augustenburg line, not only claimed the thrones in Schleswig and Holstein but also the throne of Denmark. Frederick Emil August of Augustenburg (in Denmark, known as the "Prince of Nör") was primarily interested in the thrones of Schleswig and Holstein, but his father also tried to position himself to claim the throne of Denmark as well. As such, he would naturally consider the claim to "his" throne(s) to have been usurped by Prince Christian of Glücksburg by means of this protocol. Given this background, this term smacks too much of an Augustenburg accusation that Christian gained the throne by means of international legal trickery - rather than by the will of the Danish people. This is the only way I have heard this term used in Denmark. The main reason why Christian managed to claim the Danish throne for himself in the first place was that the Augustenburgers were doing a pretty effective job alienating themselves from the Danish public. Although Christian never saw actual combat during the First War of Schleswig, he decided to stay in the Danish army throughout the First Schleswig War. All other potential pretenders served on the German side, and this became very important in the eyes of Danish public opinion. By contrast, the actions of the Augustenburgers made them a hated name. It is not a coincidence that a wing of Augustenborg Palace was converted into a lunatic asylum following the town's return to Danish rule in 1920. In itself this word might not have got such a bad name if it wasn't because all sorts of accusations crossed the border at the same time (probably both ways) poisoning everything. E.g. when some Germans tried to prove that the Jutlanders were Germans, not Danes, in an attempt legitimize expansionist claims for the entire Jutland peninsula.


 * But to cut a long story short, the term is never used in Danish history writing, and if it is ever mentioned by Danes, it is not in a positive way. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Notes
In the introduction it seems that Holstein is the southermost part of Jutland, while later on the Text clearly talks of Schleswig being the southermost part. This may stem from the difference between the term "Jutish peninsula" wich may reach to the river Elbe and thus incorporate Holstein and the geografical term Jutland which is (at least in german) normally used for the Land north of the river Eider and thus excludes Holstein.

As it seems the saxons originated in a sort of unification process in which the Reudinger were integrated. The Reudingi shouldn't be made the sole ancestors of the Saxons as in this text. Furthermore did the Reudingi more probably inhabit the south eastern parts of Holstein until the 4th century (Stormarn,Lauenburg,Ostholstein). The west being both sides of the mouth of the river Elbe were inhabited by the Chaukes, the parts north of the Elbe later becoming the Dithmarsi (Dithmarschen) and around modern Hamburg the Stormari, maybe mentioned in the Nibelung Song. Almost all of the country east of a line Hamburg-Neumuenster-Schleswig was depopulated during the 4th-6th century. Slaves colonized the almost empty country since the 7th century, the later Wagria and Polabia. See Slavic peoples. The text is mixing historicall records! The land north of the river Elbe was inhabited totally different during the time of the Roman Empire and at the time of the Frankish Empire. The jutish peninsula was largely affected by the migration movements of the "Dark Ages" making its history even more difficult.

Could somebody with good literature at hand verify the above said and correct the article accordingly?

This quote Schleswig-Holstein Question in Literature may also be understood as a warning for anyone daring to venture into the History of Schleswig-Holstein.

good luck t.w.

Clean up
I don't know enough about the history of the region to talk about its factual accuracy, but the quality of the article as it stands now is a little on the poor side. It seems that everything has been written twice, by different authors who haven't read each other's work. Someone who can pick out the best should look at rewriting so that every fact is stated exactly as many times as necessary. As is stands, 13the century is not particularly chronological, bouncing back and forth in time and repeating itself.Hinakana 08:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Obodrites are missing
As far as I am reading history of region, there were 3 nations present: Obodrites Saxons and Danes. In 19th and 20th century 2 nations struggled for it: Germans and Danes. Therefore history of middle dark ages is written from perspective of German-Danish conflict. What is missing are Obodrites, people that inhabited Eastern Holsteina and even for few years under Drosko owned almost all region. We need to complete history of their rise in power and then graduall fall - it took few centuries. I don't know how long it took in Holstein, but little bit closer to the south, language of Obodrite Drevani survived untill 19th century. Cautiuos2 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oho. I see it's sketched a dozen paragraphs later. At the moment, I can't figure out how to make it clear earlier. GcT (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Schleswig-Holstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813185012/http://www.roennebech.dk/www_fredericiashistorie/html/fredericia/artikler/novemberforfatningen.html to http://www.roennebech.dk/www_fredericiashistorie/html/fredericia/artikler/novemberforfatningen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002054320/http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/sleswig.htm to http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/sleswig.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)