I stumbled across the Hanseatic League a while ago, and I must say it rang a few bells with me...
In historical research, the Hansa had a long shadowy existence, for when interest concentrated on princes, powerful realms and heroic battles, a loose community of towns mainly inspired by mercantile considerations attracted little attention. Georg Friedrich Sartorius, in his Geschichte des hanseatischen Bundes in 1802 called it a half-forgotten antiquity. In the meantime there have been intensive studies. But on the one hand they nearly exclusively treated the first half of its history, the time of rise and success in the Middle Ages rather neglecting its later fate. And on the other hand the Hansa experienced a lot of political and nationalistic misinterpretations in former historiography. Its definition was a problem already under discussion in its time. After having deteriorated since the middle of the 15th century, English relations with the Hansa reached their lowest point when in the summer of 1468 English ships were seized in the sound by Danish vessels. The Hansa was suspected to have at least shared responsibility for that. King Edward IV straight away imprisoned the Hanseatic merchants in London and confiscated their goods in order to compensate the English merchants. The Hansa, he explained, was a society, cooperative or corporation, originating from a joint agreement and alliance of several towns and villages, being able to form contracts and being liable as joint debtors for the offences of single members. In the Hanseatic reply the Lübeck syndic stated that the Hansa was neither a society nor a corporation, it owned no joint property, no joint till, no executive officials of their own; it was a tight alliance of many towns and communities to pursue their respective own trading interests securely and profitably. The Hansa was not ruled by merchants, every town having its own ruler. It also had no seal of its own, as sealing was done by the respective issuing town. The Hansa had no common council, but discussions were held by representatives of each town. There even was no obligation to take part in the Hansa meetings and there were no means of coercion to carry through their decisions. So, according to the Lübeck syndic, the Hansa could not be defined by Roman law and was not liable as a body. This was in fact correct and deliberately ambiguous; the Hansa was frequently urged to give a self-definition as well as the exact number of its members and deliberately left all this unclear, thus leaving questions for historians as well. Examining the ambiguous term Hansa does not help us very much; it means a crowd or community as well as their membership dues or common law. Besides, the sources give numerous names to characterize the Hansa. But these are mentioned more or less casually and don't explain the subject.
Georg Friedrich Sartorius, in his Geschichte des hanseatischen Bundes in 1802 called it a half-forgotten antiquity. In the meantime there have been intensive studies. But on the one hand they nearly exclusively treated the first half of its history, the time of rise and success in the Middle Ages rather neglecting its later fate. And on the other hand the Hansa experienced a lot of political and nationalistic misinterpretations in former historiography.
Its definition was a problem already under discussion in its time. After having deteriorated since the middle of the 15th century, English relations with the Hansa reached their lowest point when in the summer of 1468 English ships were seized in the sound by Danish vessels. The Hansa was suspected to have at least shared responsibility for that. King Edward IV straight away imprisoned the Hanseatic merchants in London and confiscated their goods in order to compensate the English merchants.
The Hansa, he explained, was a society, cooperative or corporation, originating from a joint agreement and alliance of several towns and villages, being able to form contracts and being liable as joint debtors for the offences of single members.
In the Hanseatic reply the Lübeck syndic stated that the Hansa was neither a society nor a corporation, it owned no joint property, no joint till, no executive officials of their own; it was a tight alliance of many towns and communities to pursue their respective own trading interests securely and profitably.
The Hansa was not ruled by merchants, every town having its own ruler. It also had no seal of its own, as sealing was done by the respective issuing town. The Hansa had no common council, but discussions were held by representatives of each town. There even was no obligation to take part in the Hansa meetings and there were no means of coercion to carry through their decisions. So, according to the Lübeck syndic, the Hansa could not be defined by Roman law and was not liable as a body.
This was in fact correct and deliberately ambiguous; the Hansa was frequently urged to give a self-definition as well as the exact number of its members and deliberately left all this unclear, thus leaving questions for historians as well.
Examining the ambiguous term Hansa does not help us very much; it means a crowd or community as well as their membership dues or common law. Besides, the sources give numerous names to characterize the Hansa. But these are mentioned more or less casually and don't explain the subject.
Ve have ze Hansa I think..... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
License plates for Bremen are HB, or Hansastadt Bremen, ust as Hamburg is HH, Hansastadt Hamburg.
There's a serious diary here, nicht Wahr? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Far too much work involve in doing a good job of them, as well!
Although I've decided to continue to post and do the odd Diary here, as you see (how could I not, with such a great bunch?) - I doubt you'll be seeing anything else of substance from me, for which most will be thankful, I'm sure. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
