Spread of German people and Identity 

because you confuse ethnicity with nationhood.

@@riccardodececco4404 "German" is both an ethnicity and a nationality.

Nope, it's completely true. I live in Austria and nobody here identifies as a german. I'd even go so far as to say it's an insult to some people

Dutch and Flemish people don't speak German, so that makes sense.

​@@ninjam77 meanwhile dutch have some reason to consider themself not to be German, Austrians are just brainwashed I was talking once with a Austrian nazi and even he didn't consider himself to be German it's really hard to make Austrian understand who he really is what is exact diffrence between Austrian and German? well one speaks local dialects (Austrian) the other does not (German) besides that there's no major diffrence between each

I took this into account in the map from 1815. In 1848-51 the eastern part of Prussia was incorporated into the German Confederation.

@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 ohh ok. i just rewatched, I see what you mean

Yes, the territory of the Teutonic Knights, later East Prussia, never belonged to the first (Holy Roman) Empire. It became as late as 1871 part of the second Empire (Deutsches Reich). For me, to judge such a subjective matter as national identity, is almost impossible. The bourgeoisie and upper class for sure felt very german in the 18hundreds and first half of the 19hunderds, proved by election results. But there were also very strong regional identities, especially in South Germany and the eastern provinces of Prussia. Only after 1866, Bismarck felt more German than Prussian. For the West Germany chancellor Adenauer (1949 - 1962), the territories east of the Elbe River and Berlin were already Far East, half siberian. And this view was shared by the majority of the strongest polit. party, the CDU until the unification of 1990.

1. The pink line only shows the parts of Prussia outside the HRE. 2. Up until 1800 there was only a single German national feeling among educated people. Most of them were very uneducated at the time and national feelings were generally not widespread, except in the cities. But thanks for your feedback:)

@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 No. National sentiment you could find in all classes. Not only in Germany, but in all European nations. Even in the peasants war of the 16th century the reference to the German Nation and related social and political rights was a clear issue.

I am aware that there are many Germans in Germany who do not necessarily identify with Germany, but the majority supports the German nation, even if nationalism is less pronounced than in other countries such as the USA, France or Hungary.

There are probably historical scribes, and today surways

@@samsunggalaxya21s15 But it's hard to talk about national identity before nationalism and end of XVIII century.

@@G0TIMAN no, it´s not. There are plenty of written sources, personal accounts, public representations and speeches. Not to mention material evidence as epithaphs, symbols, buildings and artwork.

@@riccardodececco4404 xD Artworks? Symbols? And? I think you don't understand concept of nationality.

@@G0TIMAN I rather assume you have just no clue about anything.... maybe you should learn to read a book

Dutch actually is a german dialect. And the dutch people are also of German decent, although someone could say, that they developed in their own sub ethnicity nowadays.

@@peterlustig6888 dutch is not a German dialect at all. They cannot be understood from speakers to one another. While there is a West Germanic Dialect continuum where certain dialects are closer to others. The 3 languages of West Germanic are all standardized, Frisian, German and Dutch. And these standardized forms cannot be understood from one another. Further you have the Low German language and its dialects however its not standardized and the closest to a standard form would be the hanseatic dialects. This common failure is why the video is deceptive.

@@peterlustig6888 on top of that dutch people are not descended from germans, they are culturally and genetically descended from mostly Franks with influence from Saxons and Frisians, while Germans are descendents from Saxons, Swabians, Bavarians, Franks and to a lesser degree slavic people

@@MrPbhuh you missed the upper german language, which is spoken in the south

Around 800-1000 AD, five/six Germanic tribes (Franconia, Bavaria, Saxony, Thuringia and Swabia [and Frisians]) were gradually united into Regnum Teutonum (Kingdome of Germany, Part of HRE). Everywhere the Germans called their language something like "Deutsch". In Holland they first said Diets, later Duytsch and then Duitsch, until the Dutch formed their own nation and only the Germans in the HRE called "Duitsch/Duits" (hence English: "Dutch") In Hamburg they said Duutsc, later Duytsch, in southern Germany, Daytsch became "Teutsch" and later "Deutsch". Even if the dialects were very diverse and until the 18th century there was no broad sense of nationality, it can be said that there was a German people and a common language designation not shared by other Germanic tribes such as Norwegians, Danes and English and many Frisians. "Germanic", on the other hand, is a Roman foreign term that was not used by the common German people.

Around 800-1000 AD, five/six Germanic tribes (Franconia, Bavaria, Saxony, Thuringia and Swabia [and Frisians]) were gradually united into Regnum Teutonum (Kingdome of Germany, Part of HRE). Everywhere the Germans called their language something like "Deutsch". In Holland they first said Diets, later Duytsch and then Duitsch, until the Dutch formed their own nation and only the Germans in the HRE called "Duitsch/Duits" (hence English: "Dutch") In Hamburg they said Duutsc, later Duytsch, in southern Germany, Daytsch became "Teutsch" and later "Deutsch". Even if the dialects were very diverse and until the 18th century there was no broad sense of nationality, it can be said that there was a German people and a common language designation not shared by other Germanic tribes such as Norwegians, Danes and English and many Frisians. "Germanic", on the other hand, is a Roman foreign term that was not used by the common German people. Das hat der Kollege unter einem anderen Kommentar geschrieben. Und er hat auch recht damit. Es gab nicht diese "German identity" von der du sprichst, aber diese Gruppen ähnelten sich in vielen Bereichen. Ethnisch die gleichen Menschen.

@@nein236 Die Sachsen waren den Skandinaviern viel ähnlicher. So betrieben sie starken kulturellen Handel. Der nordische Nationalepos Thidrekssaga stammt aus den Stammesherzogtum Sachsen. Außerdem waren die Sachsen nicht sehr christlich und orientierten sich mehr gen Norden. Der Kontakt zu den Bayern bestand einzig und allein, da sie Teil des Fränkischen Reiches waren.

@@schneeweichenmunster8416 Das stimmt. Anfangs waren die Völker in Norddeutschland und Südskandinavien sich sehr ähnlich, und ethnisch genauso. Da waren die im heutigen Süddeutschland lebenden Völker noch ganz anders, mehr Richtung Kelten statt Germanen. Hat sich aber alles geändert, und grob gesehen ist dieses Video nicht wirklich falsch, vor allem ab 1800.

@@nein236 Ab 1700 ist es schon richtig. Aber davor nicht, meiner Meinung zumindest. Die Bezeichnung "Deutsch" vollzog so um diese Zeit einen Bedeutungswandel und bezog sich auf die Kultur des hochdeutschsprachigen Raumes - Das schließt auch Norddeutschland ein, da dort ja Hochdeutsch Amtssprache wurde.