Today’s #handbook author is none other than our wonderful co-editor @dorotheegoetze.
Goetze is Assistant Professor at the Midsweden University in Sundsvall. If you ask her herself, she is not an historian of #emdiplomacy, but does constitutional history and early modern peace research with a special focus on the #HolyRomanEmpire and the Baltic region. Thus, she brings different perspectives into the field of #NewDiplomaticHistory.
She publishes extensively in German, Swedish and English, e.g. this #openaccess article in English on hospitality and the Riga capitulation in 1710. (2/7)
Goetze then turns her attention to #emdiplomacy by individual Imperial estates. Exemplary she focusses on Brandenburg, Saxony and Hesse-Kassel. In general, she again regrets a lack of research. Although there are some studies focusing for example on the relations between Hesse-Kassel and Sweden, such studies are always limited on a particular period and case.
There’s a definite lack on studies who try to give a more concise overview and put the diplomatic activities of the different Imperial estates into context. (6/7)
Summing up, Goetze concludes that the complexity of #emdiplomacy is reflected in the complexity of the #HRE and calls for more a more inclusive approach meaning more exchange between different research tradition, combining constitutional history, court studies and dynastic history and #NewDiplomaticHistory. (7/7)
The tasks of an #emdiplomat were manifold: Sometimes it meant getting a noble countryman - or to be precise his servants - out of trouble, because he didn't no the foreign laws, as this story of the English ambassador in Venice shows.
Did you miss us? We’re back again introducing our next author Güneş Işıksel to you!
Işıksel is Associate professor at Istanbul Medeniyet University. He is an expert in Ottoman #emdiplomacy and published not only in Turkish but also in French and English. (2/7)
His monograph focusses on #emdiplomacy under Selim I. So who could be better than Işıksel for writing the #handbook article on the development of Ottoman #diplomacy?! (3/7)
The Ottoman Empire is an important actor in #emdiplomacy. Many European researchers look at the relations of different European countries to the Ottoman Empire. But these accounts are often onesided, as they lack the required language skills. Therefore, we are very happy to have found an expert who can take on the Ottoman perspective! (4/7)
Işıksel explains that Ottoman #emdiplomacy had to be in line with the precepts of the Hanafite school of Islamic law. However, these principles were regularly re-interpreted and adapted. Traditional European historiography sees the main shift in Ottoman #diplomacy in the 19th c. with the establishment of permanent embacys. However, Işıksel argues that this Eurocentric view ignores the many other diplomatic contacts and thus propose a different periodisation. (5/7)
Although it is already Friday, we do not want to conclude this week without introducing another #emdiplomacy#handbook chapter.
The next author to enter the stage is Maria Petrova who is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of World History at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Having published broadly on Russian #diplomacy towards Austria and the Holy Roman Empire, Petrova is one of the leading experts in the field. See e.g. her study on the appearance of Russian #diplomats at the Imperial Diet in Regensburg (2/4)
1549 is considered the foundation date of the Russian foreign office, but until the 18th century Russian tsars preferred to permanent diplomatic representatives abroad. Major reforms were only introduced under the reign of Tsar Peter I.
However, a change in attitude towards foreign #diplomats already followed the dynastical change in the 1610s: restrictions were eased. Moreover, the tsar began to welcome permanent representatives from other territories and to establish permanent diplomats himself. (3/4)
By intensifying interaction with other #courts and rulers, Russian #diplomats became cultural brokers who contributed to the transfer of people, objects and ideas from Europe to Russia.
Petrova argues that the introduction of the European diplomatic rank system and ceremonial was aimed more at demonstrating the superiority of Russian rulers than at creating equal relations with other powers. (4/4)
After submitting my Habil thesis I have finally time to read other stuff, as this essay collection on the wedding of Charles I and Henrietta Maria. It's waiting for me to review for... too long.
So, far I'm really enjoying it. As it's about a royal wedding there's also lots of #emdiplomacy going on.
But she is not alone! With David Gehring at University of Notthingham, who is an expert on #earlymodern#British#history, she found the perfect partner in writing. Gehring’s special interest on #Elizabethan#England's relations with the Protestant territories of the #HolyRomanEmpire and #Denmark is also reflected in his publications:
In their article, Freyer and Gehring provide us with an overview over how #English and #British#emdiplomacy developed from the 16th to the 18th century. Traditionally, research stressed #England’s diplomatic relations with #Spain and #France. With a broader understanding of English interests coming to the fore, the research focus widened accordingly.
#Scotland and England followed their own diplomatic agendas in the 16th century, exercising #diplomacy in different ways and with different partners. However, this included also each other with intensive diplomatic contacts in the 1530s and 1540s as well as the 1560s and 1570s. The #UnionoOfTheCrown in 1603 changed the preconditions for English and Scottish diplomacy according to Freyer and Gehring, as England became dominant for foreign relations, although in theory Scottish diplomacy could have run alongside the English. (4/6)
18th century #British#emdiplomacy faced self-made hurdles. The personnel for example were British upper classes who could meet the requirements for ceremonial knowledge, but were not trained in international relations or the duties of #emdiplomats in particular. Thus, while European #diplomacy became increasingly professionalised, British diplomacy remained stuck in an increasingly outmoded understanding of ceremonial and social capital. (6/6)
One central problem that resulted from the federal nature of the #Dutch republic was secrecy: How could one keep a secret with so many actors involved? This was almost a mission impossible, although one tried several measures such as an oath of secrecy to deal with the problem.
When dealing with Dutch #emdiplomacy you inevitably come across two other big issues: the Protestant character of Dutch #earlymodern#diplomacy and the importance of trade and commercial interests. For @helmers_h and @NinaLamal these are not contradictory interests. However, they argue that “commerce, geopolitics, and protestantism were perfectly reconcilable”. (4/5)
Finally, @helmer and @NinaLamal argue that it is important to analyse #Dutch#emdiplomacy not only in its European context, but in its global dimension. The East India Company (#VOC) and its growing importance in #Asia played an important role in the rise of the Dutch republic. Unfortunately, both dimesions – the European and the global one – are far too often dealt seperately with by modern research. A problem that is generally true for research on #earlymodern diplomacy.
This leads to an overarching problem of how to competently connect national, European and global perspectives on diplomacy without blurring the focus. A question to be discussed elsewhere. (5/5)
According to Cario-Invernizzi the fact the Iberian kingsdoms were the first European realms to connect with the rest of the world on a grand scale, gave their diplomatic policies a unique character.
Diplomatic relations with Africa and Asia required constant negotiations, and even required tributes to be paid to guarantee the security of Europe’s presence in the area.
Distance was a significant factor in Iberian #diplomacy. Therefore, agents were sometimes sent to cover shorter distances. Moreover, diplomatic encounters in Eurasia did not take place between entire societies but rather between segments of societies or subcultures.
This fact suggests the existence of a cross-sectional diplomatic language between European and Asian societies. (4/n)