Talk:Timeline of German history

[Untitled]

Before the page looked as it does now, it was a list of years with only a few links to them.I moved the three years which actually had content to List of years in Germany. Saintswithin 11:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

chancellors

I've removed some chancellors, as if we add some, we should add all of them since 1871, plus the presidents and the leaders of East Germany, the kings, etc. and it will just clog up the list unnecessarily as there are lists of chancellors and kings elsewhere. Saintswithin 12:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---I think you are right about that but we should include important chancellors like Bismark, Stresemann, and Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.127.111 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Odd claims

Seriously... claiming Germanic tribes as Germans, is wrong. But to claim them as being German 1000BC is preposterous. Rex 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should delete the events before a certain date (800? 1871? 1990?), that we should rename the article, or add an explanation, or do you have another solution? Cf. Timeline of British history (Before 1000) ("8th millennium BC: Mesolithic Period begins"), bearing this in mind Saint|swithin 09:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a fundamental difference between those articles. The article on British history is about, and I quote: "This article presents a timeline of events in the history of Britain ". While this article claims to present "a timeline of German history", and German here is meant in the sense of "German people", eventhough German here is linked to Germany. (Why else also refer to the History of Germany) The article on British history restricts itself to events that took place in Britain. This article does not and makes claims that can never be backed up. Rex 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the article in the first place and didn't intend to make any "preposterous" claims, but simply to write a similar article to the British one, to present a history of what went on in what is now Germany in the past, going as far back as possible. One reason behind this was that people only tend to think about modern German history, and I wanted to show that that is not all there is. If you think I got it wrong, please alter it as you feel it is more appropriate. I'd do it myself, but I'm still not sure I understand what changes you want to make to the article. If you want to alter the wording to make it more like the British article, you can do that without putting an "unverified claim" box in the article (the latter makes it look as though the events on the list might not have happened). Saint|swithin 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... How do you define "Germany"

I think it's clear this article is intended as a history timeline in what is today Germany. As such the content seems fine and undisputed. What might need reconsideration is the article's title and intro. That is to say possibly rename the article to Timeline of the History of Germany (then again that would give the wrong impression that it's only about relatively recent history

). So the main problem is probably that the intro does not properly explain that this is a timeline for the territory now known as Germany. Note, there is no claim in this article that the Germanic People were Germans, also all events in the timeline either took place in what is today Germany or are closely linked to it (I was for a moment tempted to remove the Cimbri, Teutoni and Helvetii, but then the Cimbri probably and the Teutoni certainly moved through what is today Germany...) . In the meantime I think both tags should be removed.--Caranorn 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked "German" and "Germany" up in the dictionary and encyclopedia, and still can't work out why it is the wrong word ...

In my large Hutchinson Encyclopedia (2004 edition) [1] under "Germany" there is a chronology which begins c.1000 BC: Germanic tribes from Scandinavia begin to settle the region between the rivers Rhine, Elbe and Danube. See also this old book you can read online.

The dictionary says: German ... 2 (historical) belonging or relating to the country, state or republic of Germany in any of its various historical forms. [2]

... could someone explain what is wrong? What exactly is preposterous? Why do we need to qualify the word "Germany", and how? What is the difference meant to be between "German history" and "history of Germany"? I'm not being sarcastic, I simply honestly do not understand. Just imagine you're talking to someone very slow... :-) Saint|swithin 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should either be about the developement of the geographical region now known as Germany (in which you can go back to pangea if you like) or the German people. (in which case a very clear difference must be made between germans and Germanic peoples)Rex 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, this article cleraly is not about German People, neither does it claim to be. Saint has just given a good definition of German. A slight expansion of the intro would still be useful, but currently it's not wrong.--Caranorn 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this again, I think I understand that Rex really is just objecting to the word "German". Do correct me if I'm wrong, Rex: you have not directly said what the problem is, but reading between the lines, it seems you believe "German" means "relating to the German people"? As a native speaker of English, that idea did not even come into my head. "German history" means exactly the same as "History of Germany". Maybe you are influenced by another language? Does Dutch make some subtle distinction between the form with the adjective and the noun? Is there some aspect of German I have completely missed? Of course, you can still go ahead and add an explanation that the Germanic tribes are not Germans, but this article does not say that they are.

Or maybe I still don't understand? You said "This article should ... be about the development of the geographical region now known as Germany" -- does this mean you don't believe it should be about historical German territories? Saint|swithin 09:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the 1700s?!

Fair use rationale for Image:100-DEM-OBV-154x74.jpg

Image:100-DEM-OBV-154x74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

German periodisation

I'm looking for information on IF and HOW the war with Soviet Union 1941-1945 is periodised in Germany.--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Weimar Republic

We have the Weimar Republic in 1919, presumably because that was when the Weimar Constitution was passed into law. It would in my mind, be better to put it in 1918 because that was when it "emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918" as it says in the Weimar Republic's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.127.111 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Leibnitz founds the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1719?

That must have been difficult, since he died in 1716. bd2412 T 04:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and so as a precaution he founded it in 1700.Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What about wars against Romans

in the early centuries of our era. Besides, archaeology shows that there was a large war in Germany in prehistoric times.Marcin862 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Revise Timeline RE: Births/Deaths

It strikes me that this timeline has a lot of entries simply for the birth or death of various German historical persons. This makes sense to me if the person's birth or death was considered particularly notable or "year defining" by the people of it's time, in other words, if that person being born or dying actually had immediate widespread notoriety or influence. It makes a lot less sense though to list simply the death of a scientist like Gauss, rather than choosing a crowning event of his career and embedding that in the timeline - was the death of Gauss itself really a defining historical moment, or was his publishing of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" in 1801, a profoundly influential work and the moment he became a European celebrity, a more defining historical moment for him and Germany? Similarly, was the birth of Thomas Mann in 1875 a defining historical moment, or was his attainment of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1929 his defining moment? It just seems to me that these births and deaths are not in themselves particularly informative or demonstrative of influential events of the time - rather the actual defining actions of these people seem more historically relevant and interesting to capture within a timeline. I understand that during the period of monarchy, birth and deaths of royals would have historical notability as they were national events that immediately influenced the actions of government, but a lot of the celebrities in this timeline made their mark on history in mid to late life, and rarely by sake of their births/death alone. Not making any changes at this time - just wanted to put this out here and get some thoughts? LiamJSP (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)