Juden zwischen den Fronten im Dreißigjährigen Krieg: Gustav Adolf von Schweden und der landgräflich-hessische Judenschutz
Jews from the upper county of Katzenelnbogen, the southern part of the landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt ruled by George II, were placed in an almost hopeless situation by the passage of Swedish troops in November and December 1631. The Lutheran landgrave associated with the Catholic Habsburg Emperor...
| Published in: | Aschkenas |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| In: |
Aschkenas
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Gustav Adolf II Sweden, King 1594-1632
/ Georg, II., Hessen-Darmstadt, Landgraf 1605-1661
/ Jews
/ Schutzbrief (Law)
/ Thirty Years's War
/ Power politics
|
| RelBib Classification: | BH Judaism KAH Church history 1648-1913; modern history ZC Politics in general |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Jews from the upper county of Katzenelnbogen, the southern part of the landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt ruled by George II, were placed in an almost hopeless situation by the passage of Swedish troops in November and December 1631. The Lutheran landgrave associated with the Catholic Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand II had to bow to the demand of King Gustav Adolf of Sweden to hand over the fortress of Rüsselsheim am Main to him to secure his campaign. The neutrality negotiated for this purpose was intended to keep the upper county out of the war, but instead led to the fact that the landgrave’s territory was now used by both warring parties for troop movements such as quartering, in many cases at the expense of the Jews living there and confronted with contributions and ransom demands. Although the landgrave insisted on the active exercise of his Judenregal and his protective rights, which he regarded as part of national sovereignty in accordance with contemporary legal doctrine, in order to stabilize his sovereignty, he could only imperfectly exercise protection upon his Jews. He was not interested in the welfare of the country’s Jewry, whose rights he granted only very restrictively, but in the legal constitution and consolidation of his sovereignty. To this end, the Jews were instrumentalized and became objects of his political goals. Under these circumstances, an independently acting Jewish community could hardly develop. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1865-9438 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Aschkenas
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1515/asch-2020-0011 |