Category talk:House of Baden

Source falsification

Repeated attempts have been made to change well sourced info about the House of Zähringen being the same as the House of Baden, most recently by changing the text but leaving the source which says no such thing, resulting in false sourcing. Restored well sourced info. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I had left the old source there to reference the modern usage of Zähringen for Baden (which is all that should need referencing-the House of Zähringen being extinct since 1218 surely does not need referencing, this is common knowledge.). To give a bit of context: The House of Baden has taken up the name Zähringen (or rather, the additional title of Herzog von Zähringen) in the early 19th century, but it is not the same as the House of Zähringen, which is extinct since 1218. Also see the explanation on the de-wp articles about the two families: [1] and [2]. If anything, the House of Baden goes back to a branch of the House of Zähringen, an interpretation that is still quite prevalent, but which is also not in line with current historical research- both House of Baden and House of Zähringen go back to Berthold, but this Berthold never called himself either "of Baden" or "of Zähringen", which is why current research refers to him and his ancestors simply as "Bertholde" (see Heinz Krieg & Thomas Zotz: Der Adel im Breisgau und die Zähringer. Gruppenbildung und Handlungsspielräume, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 150 (2002), p. 76). The modern interpretation would thus be that both Zähringer and Baden go back to the Bertholde- i.e., they have common roots, but they are neiter the same, nor is one a line of the other. --SEM (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Source? I have provided one of the most reputable and respected sources in history for the fact that the House of Baden also is known as the House of Zähringen. I will keep restoring that relevant info here unless you can provide a valid source that proves your point of voiew. Your personal opinion, and links to Wikipedia pages with small, questionable, opinionated sources, are not enough. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia pages were just added for clarification here in the discussion. The source given in my last edit is both reputable and respected; I am not sure what leads you to conclude that it would be "small, questionable, [and] opinionated".--SEM (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing: Your reputable and respected source is "Burke's Peerage" from 1826. Almost two centuries later we do have more reputable and recent literature as noted above. The recursion by the House of Baden to a more reputable lineage (they also had the problem, that their is in the tradition of many German noble families in Renaissance times when ancestry was traced to Homeric heroes, or Roman ancesstors or at least some noble Italian families. Baden had just been created by Napoleon and enlarged by territories with a long own history. By going back to the Zähringer, the House of Baden built up a tradition that these terrritories could also adobt as their own, because many of the towns that came into the Dutchy of Baden had been founded by the Zähringer. So it is just propaganda. Burke fell for it, and in English Literature this has been perpetuated. I am sure even modern English scholars will support this, if one is willing to research. Here from Germany I don't have the ressource to do this, but the German Literature, as seen above tells a different story. We have had this discussion before--Wuselig (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

1826? The book I cited was published in 1977, and Burke's is still today one of the most respected authorities, worldwide. Like it or not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the page text says "also known as", which is an indisputable fact, regardless of any propaganda issues. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Also known as" what? House of Baden, or House of Zähringen?--Wuselig (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"also known as" is not entirely wrong per se, but it is a grave oversimplification and only true for the time since the 19th century. For the centuries before, the House of Baden was not known as the House of Zähringen. My suggestion still acknowledges that the name Zähringen is nowadays used sometimes, but it also makes the historical connection (and especially the lack of historical equivalence) more clear. It is also essentially a translation of what is written there in German... --SEM (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The House of Baden is also known as the House of Zähringen, and I will keep reinstating that fact forever because of the extremely reliable source I have provided. You keep removing that source, and if you do it again I'll turn you in for disruptive editing. Please stop it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with the current version, including my changes. Zaehringen is not older than Baden, especially not "much"- both houses descend from Berthold I., who is sometimes counted as belonging to Zaehringen, sometimes not, but who was the father of the key ancestor of the House of Baden anyways. And not even the English literature doubts that the original House of Zaehringen is extinct (see for example Cambridge Medieval History, Shorter: Volume 2, p.856: "When the Zaehringen became extinct in 1218...") --SEM (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I agree with you. In this case, the name Baden is merely a place associated with the family, whose original name is "Zahringen". It's like when Spanish history calls the Habsburgs as "Casa de Austria" (House of Austria), only indicating that the family was ruling there when they inherited Spain.
More, the House of Baden descends agnatically and legitimally from Berthold I, Duke of Zahringen.
I vote for redirecting content from "House of Baden" to "House of Zahringen". Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh my God! Just saw this discussion now. We had this discussion before. THe House of Zähringen went extinct in 1218. The House of Baden revived the Title in the 19th centuary, when thanks to Napoleon they rose to greater power again in Southwestern Germany, getting alloted territories formerly belonging to the Habsburg family. Mayor cities in these territorie, like for instance Freiburg had Zähringen traditions, so the Baden family saw it oppertune to revive this common ancestry to bind these former Austrians to their new state. The House of Zähringen as a name for the House of Baden is just not correct. It uis so simple: Two brothers, two lines. One line goes extinct, the other continues. 700 years later, the family revives an extinct title and adds it to their titels. The House of Baden is not the House of Zähringen. --Wuselig (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source for all that, more reliable than en:Burke's Peerage and en:Debrett's, both of which give a direct male line of descent from Berchtold, Count of Bresgau (962-968) to the current head, with no mention of any break in 1218? Wikimedia projects go by reliable sources, not personal stories.As long as no reliable sources are mentioned for these stories, there is no need to discuss this at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the break was already in 1112. There were two brothers. One formed the line of Zähringen, which went extict in 1218, and one formed the line of Baden which lived on happily ever after until today. The Title of the Dukes of Zähringen fell extinct for 600 years and was only revived in the 19th century for propaganda reasons to give former Austrian citizens a new sense of belonging in the newly formed Baden Markgraviate. Burke fell for that ploy, today's historians, especially in Germany and even more Southwestern Germany (Baden-Württemberg) don't go with this. I advise you to read the subsection about criticism on your source. And advise you to look into up-to date history books. --Wuselig (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless you name a reliable source for them, your personal stories are of no value to Commons or to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As long as this Commons Category serves as a link source to the German Language Articles about the Haus Baden and to the Zähringer I advise you to study German history, instead some Genealogical contraption that is "purely mythical – if indeed mythical is not too respectable a name for what must be in many cases the work of deliberate invention .... (and) all but invariably false. As a rule, it is not only false, but impossible .... not merely fictions, but exactly that kind of fiction which is, in its beginning, deliberate and interested falsehood". If you do not come up with better sources than Geneology Literature that might still be important for some people in your country. In Germany Nobility was abolished in 1918 and since than it is History Books that count. --Wuselig (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, why are you so intend on changing the name of this catagory? You already got your catagory?--Wuselig (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I got aware of this discussion through de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Geschichte#Die Zähringer und das Haus Baden.

There is no question that the houses of Baden and Zähringen are separate houses despite their common ancestor, Berthold I, Duke of Carinthia and Margrave of Verona. They are different branches much like the House of Windsor which split of from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But even more so as the house of Zähringen took up this name when Berthold II, younger son of Berthold I, moved his centre to Zähringen castle when he inherited the territory of Rheinfelden through his wife Agnes, daughter of Rudolf of Rheinfelden. Berthold II was elected Duke of Swabia in 1092 in opposition to Frederick I but traded this in 1098 against Zurich and the foundation of the title of a Duke of Zähringen. The house of Zähringen became extinct when their last head, Berthold V, died in 1218 without surviving sons. The Zähringer territories were split among the Counts of Urach and Kiburg, both through married sisters of Berthold V, the Dukes of Teck (a branch of the Zähringer, founded by Adalbert I, son of Conrad I), and last but not least Frederick II. Eventually, the former territories of the house of Zähringen came mainly in the posession of Fürstenberg, Baden, Further Austria, and the Swiss Confederacy. Much later, the house of Habsburg and the house of Baden chose to view the house of Zähringen to be their ancestors.

The oldest son of Berthold I, Herman I inherited the title of a Count of Breisgau and a Margrave of Verona from his father. He never inherited the title of a Duke from his father as he entered Cluny Abbey in 1073 where he died in 1074 (before his father died in 1078). Herman's son, Herman II was the first one to use the title Margrave of Baden when he took residence at Castle Baden in 1112 which he got from Henry IV in exchange for the loss of Verona.

In summary: The houses of Zähringen and Baden have indeed a common ancestor in Berthold I but the title Duke of Zähringen did not exist in his lifetime. Instead, each of these houses and their associated titles were created after the split. They are considered different branches which existed in parallel from 1112 to 1218. The house of Baden did not inherit any territories directly from the house of Zähringen when it became extinct. Eventually, the house of Baden was able to get hold of some of the former Zähringen territories.

Literature:

• Gerhard Köbler: Historisches Lexikon der deutschen Länder, C.H.Beck, ISBN 978-3-406-54986-1, p. 814. Quote: “Berthold I. wurde von 1061 bis 1077 Herzog von Kärnten mit der Mark Verona. 1078 spaltete sich bei seinem Tod unter seinem Sohn Hermann die Linie (der Markgrafen von) Baden ab.”
• Thomas Zotz: Zähringer. In: Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. IX, col. 464–467. Quote: “War damit die Zeit der Z.herrschaft zu Ende gegangen, so kam den Z.n in der Nachwirkung eine bedeutsame Rolle zu, indem sich sowohl die Habsburger als auch (in der frühen NZ) die Badener auf sie als Vorfahren beriefen.”
• Thomas Zotz: Zähringer. In: Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. IX, col. 1003–1004. This entry provides a pedigree of the house of Zähringen including its ancestors reaching back to Bertholde, father of Bezelin v. Villingen who died in 1024. This pedigree also includes Herman I until Herman IV in small italics as a branch.
• Hansmartin Schwarzmaier: Baden, Mgf.en v., Mgft.. In: Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. I, col. 1337–1338.

--AFBorchert (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So after the Zähringen Family was extinct, the Baden Family continued its existence. Doing what all these families did, producing male offspring to continue its existance. Unfortunately many of these male offspring were not content to step back, so that the history of the family was mostly a history of split-ups and divisions. Even mixing up religious affiliations after the Reformation. Luckily they managed to reunite their territories this time after the extinctioncs of the various sublines. One time, when there was no offspring, a marriage below stand saved them just in time, before becomming extinct themselves.

The Zähringen who had been all but forgotten by the Baden family came back into the story with Johann Daniel Schöpflin, who wrote the Historia Zaringo-Badensis, seven volumes, Karlsruhe 1763-1766 ([3]). It came in handy for Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden, who at that time was able to reunite the Margravate for the first time in one hand for the first time, since ages. It was important to built a common story for the subjects comming from different traditions and religions. Even more so, when with the formation of the Grand Duchy of Baden by the grace of Napoleon, territories that had passed over into others jurisdictions after the extinction of the Zähringen, came back to be incorporated into the Lands of Baden.

Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden, did assume the title of Duke of Zähringen. But it was a titular title only. He also constituted the Order of the Zähringer Lion, for those propaganda purposes. After all he needed to built some kind of unifying storyline for his new country. When he started out he had 90,000 subjects and a territory of ~ 1.631 km2. When he died he had 900,000 subjects and a territory of ~ 14.622 km2. In the turmoil about the legitamcy of his succession a grander story about ancecestry also came in handy.

But here a quote from a modern history book about the "Markgrafschaft Baden" (Armin Kohnle: Kleine Geschichte der Markgrafschaft Baden, 2nd edition, 2009, ISBN 978-3-7650-8346-4) p. 21:

"Die Zähringer-Tradition war eine der wichtigsten Elemente der Staatspropaganda des neuen Baden. (...) Noch heute sitzt die Literatur gelegentlich der Vereinnahmung der Zähringer Tradition durch Badener auf, wenn behauptet wird, die Markgrafen von Baden stammten aus dem Geschlecht der Zähringer. Richtig ist, dass Badener und Zähringer in Berthold I. einen gemeinsamen Vorfahren hatten."

To try to alter the division of the two houses in the German Language Wikipedia would be considered vandalism, and it should be the same here. --Wuselig (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)