@histodons @historikerinnen @earlymodern

As this project is in its early stages, we have to wait for the final results. But it’s interesting that again a congress is supposed to be a benchmark for developments that go beyond foreign politics. So, we stay tuned to continue the discussion on the role of #congressDiplomacy in general. (7/7)

@histodons @historikerinnen @earlymodern

Michael Brauer took a different perspective on the #congress of Vienna. He asks for its influence on European cuisine. Did it mark a transition from Baroque cuisine, based on spices, to modern “French” cuisine, based on the taste of the ingredients? Starting point of these reflections are of course the many festivities and banquets that took place during the negotiations that provided not only the possibility for informal political talks but also for cultural exchange. So, Brauer asks: Was there a culinary aesthetic specific to the #VienesseCongress? Which symbolic and political role played food on the congress? To answer these questions he looks at a great variety of sources ranging of administrative sources, account books, letters, memoires as well as cook books. (6/7)

@histodons @historikerinnen @earlymodern

The role of #peacecongresses in these processes of exchange was tackled twice: @LenaOetzel focused on the congress of #Westphalia, while Michael Brauer from Salzburg University looked at the congress of Vienna (1815).

Lena argued that the peace congress didn’t function as a special hub for the exchange of goods between the Austrian and the Spanish Habsburgs; they had their permanent ambassadors at the courts that dealt with this kind of exchange. But nonetheless the peace congress was a place of exchange, especially of food. For the Imperial estates the congress offered an unusual opportunity to get into contact to the greater European powers. Among others there did this by offering gifts, especially food. The count of Oldenburg e.g. gave away huge amounts of meat and fish and other delicacies in order to enhance his interests. (5/)

@histodons @historikerinnen @earlymodern

Secondly, luxury good and food played an important part as gifts in #emdiplomacy. Gift-giving was an essential part of symbolic communication that helped establish and maintain relationships, but also express status and hierarchies. Giving and receiving gifts was expected, although there could be a fine line between gift-giving and supposed bribery.
If you want to know more about it, we can recommend the #handbook article by Mark Häberlein (for its introduction on this channel you have to be patient a bit longer).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672008-035

(3/)

@histodons @historikerinnen @earlymodern

Of course #emdiplomats and #emdiplomacysSources played an important part in these discussions. Firstly, they often acted as cultural brokers, as they collected and obtained special objects, delicacies and other luxury goods for their rulers. For our #handbook Elisabeth Natour talked about the relationship between art and diplomacy and the role of #emdiplomats as cultural brokers. (2/)

https://hcommons.social/@emdiplomacy/111997262704877738

@FAU @womenknowhistory @histodons @earlymodern

Félicité picks up on the fascinating example of trading companies: Although no sovereign powers from a European perspective, they acted quite independently in Asia for example and in fact helped the European monarchies establishing diplomatic contacts. She argues that “these institutions both co-produced diplomacy and were produced by diplomacy.” Thus, focussing on the sending institutions of #emdiplomacy deepens our understanding of early modern European political culture and state formation in general. (5/5)

@FAU @womenknowhistory @histodons @earlymodern

Therefore, in a second step, Félicité discusses the diversity of political entities that enganged in diplomacy. These were not only the great powers and European kingdoms, but also smaller political actors, such as duchies or city states or even trading companies or religious orders. For these precarious actors diplomatic interaction was in a way key to their political survival. It kept them in the game and contributed to stabilizing their status. (4/5)

@FAU @womenknowhistory @histodons @earlymodern

In a first step, Félicité looks into contemporary theory on the right of legation that was closely linked to debates on sovereignty, thereby discussing authors such as Jean Bodin and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. While in theory the right of legation was linked to sovereign power, there were a lot of actors who did not have full sovereignty according to theory, but who clearly acted diplomatically. (3/5)

@FAU @womenknowhistory

For the #handbook Félicité asks the fundamental question: Who was allowed to sent out #emdiplomats? She explains that the actor-centred approach of #NDH has led to the neglect of the institutional side of diplomacy in favor of diplomatic actors. But in order to understand #emdiplomacy we also must pay attention to the “sending institutions”. (2/5)

#NewDiplomaticHistory #diplomacy #earlymodern #history
@histodons @earlymodern

@histodons @earlymodern

As handbook editors and authors of this account it was and is always important to us to show #emdiplomacy in its diversity. This means different forms of #emdiplomacy in different European countries as well as different diplomatic actors. Therefore, we introduce you to black #emdiplomats last month.
Moreover, for us this also means giving researchers from different countries a voice: either by introducing you to their work or during the editing process by including them in the #handbook. For us this is fundamental and connected, because only by listening to different (academic and historical) voices we can understand the complexity of (historical and current) societies. But again, we can only do this, when we have academic freedom. (4/5)