Modern Perception of the Teutonic Order
The modern perception of the Teutonic Order is, a product of the long disputes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Order’s reputation was, in the nineteenth century, shaped by the contending German and Polish national traditions, and the Order’s reputation was, in the twentieth century, complicated by the Nazi appropriation of the Order’s heritage. The postwar historiography of the Order has, attempted to recover the Order’s medieval character as a religious and military institution, and the postwar historiography has, distanced itself from the national-mission rhetoric of the previous century. The modern perception of the Order is, in short, more nuanced and more balanced than the perception of the Order in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the modern perception of the Order is, a transnational and comparative enterprise.
The Nazi Appropriation
The Nazi appropriation of the Teutonic Order was an extreme form of the German national-mission rhetoric of the previous century. The Nazi ideologues of the 1920s and 1930s were interested, in this period, in the construction of a usable medieval past, and the Teutonic Order was, a particularly attractive source of national symbolism. The Order’s crusading vocation was, in the Nazi view, a model of the German defence of Europe against the Slavic and the Asiatic. The Order’s medieval empire was, in the Nazi view, the model of the future German empire in the conquered east. The Order’s racial ideology was, in the Nazi view, a model of the German racial purity that the Nazi state was intended to ensure.
The Nazi appropriation of the Order was, in practice, a central element in the propaganda of the Nazi period. The Order was, in the Nazi propaganda, an explicit point of reference, and the Order’s symbols, rituals, and architectural forms were, in the Nazi propaganda, a central element in the construction of the Nazi visual culture. The Order’s black cross was, in the Nazi period, a central element in the iconography of the SS, and the Order’s medieval castles were, in the Nazi period, a central element in the architecture of the Nazi state.
The Nazi appropriation of the Order was, a substantial embarrassment for the German national tradition, and the postwar German historiography of the Order has, distanced itself from the Nazi appropriation. The postwar German historiography has, attempted to recover the Order’s medieval character as a religious and military institution, and the postwar German historiography has, treated the Nazi appropriation as a distortion of the Order’s medieval character.
The Postwar Historiography
The postwar historiography of the Order was, in its first decades, dominated by the German and the Polish national traditions. The German postwar historiography was generally conducted by scholars who were committed to the reconstruction of the German national tradition, and the German postwar historiography was, an attempt to recover the Order’s medieval character as a German institution. The German postwar historiography was, however, also committed to a critical distance from the Nazi appropriation, and the German postwar historiography has, developed a more nuanced and more balanced view of the Order’s history.
The Polish postwar historiography was generally conducted by scholars who were committed to the construction of the modern Polish national tradition, and the Polish postwar historiography was, an attempt to recover the Order’s medieval character as an oppressor of the Polish nation. The Polish postwar historiography has, retained much of the national-mission rhetoric of the nineteenth century, and the Polish postwar historiography has, treated the Order as a symbol of the German oppression of the Slavic peoples. The Polish postwar historiography has, however, also developed a more nuanced and more balanced view of the Order’s history, and the Polish postwar historiography has, treated the Order as a complex institution with a long and varied history.
The Estonian and Latvian national traditions have, in the postwar period, treated the Order as a colonial oppressor, but the modern Estonian and Latvian historiography is more interested in the cultural and administrative legacy of the Order than in the national-mission rhetoric of the nineteenth century. The Estonian and Latvian historiography has, developed a more nuanced and more balanced view of the Order’s history, and the Estonian and Latvian historiography has, treated the Order as a complex institution with a long and varied history.
The Modern Transnational Scholarship
The modern historiography of the Order is, a transnational and comparative enterprise. The Order is studied, in the modern historiography, in the context of the broader history of the military-religious orders — the Templars, the Hospitallers, the Calatrava, the Santiago, the Aviz, the Sword Brothers — and in the context of the broader history of the European frontier societies — the Iberian frontier, the Baltic frontier, the crusader states of the Levant. The modern historiography is also interested in the Order’s role in the development of the European state system, in the Order’s contribution to the Christianisation of north-eastern Europe, in the Order’s architectural legacy, in the Order’s legal traditions, and in the Order’s contribution to the cultural and economic development of the Baltic region.
The modern historiography of the Order is, in addition to the German, Polish, Estonian, and Latvian traditions, conducted by scholars in a substantial number of other European countries — in France, in Britain, in Italy, in the Czech Republic, in Scandinavia, and in the United States. The transnational scholarship has, developed a more nuanced and more balanced view of the Order’s history, and the transnational scholarship has, treated the Order as a complex institution with a long and varied history.
The modern historiography has, also been interested in the Order’s role as a model of the medieval European state. The Order’s territorial state in Prussia and the Order’s branch state in Livonia were, in the modern historiography, important experiments in the development of the European state system, and the Order’s role in the development of the European state system is, a central element in the modern historiography of the European state.
The Continuing Institutional Presence
The Order continues to exist, in the present day, as a small Catholic religious order, with its headquarters in Vienna. The modern Order is dedicated to charitable works, including the care of the sick, the education of the young, and the support of the poor. The modern Order has a few hundred members, a handful of houses in Austria, Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic, and a substantial archival and historical apparatus.
The modern Order is, in its self-understanding, a continuation of the medieval Order, and the modern Order is, in its self-understanding, committed to the religious vocation of the medieval Order. The modern Order is, however, not a territorial sovereign, and the modern Order is, in its self-understanding, not a military force. The modern Order is, a small Catholic religious order, and the modern Order is, very different from the medieval Order of the high Middle Ages.
The modern Order’s archival and historical apparatus is, however, a central element in the modern historiography of the Order. The Order’s archives in Vienna are the principal repository of the Order’s medieval records, and the Order’s archives are, an important source for the modern historiography of the Order. The Order’s archives are, in the present day, open to qualified researchers, and the Order’s archives are, in the present day, a central element in the modern historiography of the Order.
The Modern Heritage of the Order
The Order’s continuing institutional presence is, in a few respects, a reminder of the long shadow of the medieval past on the European present. The Order’s archives in Vienna, the Order’s churches in Austria and Germany, the Order’s castles in Poland and the Baltic states — these are all part of the European heritage, and they are all part of the European present. The Order is, in short, an institution that has outlived the medieval world, but that has not yet been fully integrated into the modern European self-understanding.
The modern perception of the Order is, a balance between the medieval past and the European present. The Order is, in the modern perception, a medieval institution with a long and varied history, an institution that is best understood in the context of the medieval European frontier societies and the medieval European state system. The Order is, however, also a modern institution, a small Catholic religious order that is dedicated to charitable works in the present day. The modern perception of the Order is, in short, a balance between the medieval past and the European present, and the modern perception of the Order is, a balance between the religious, the military, the territorial, and the national-mission rhetoric of the previous centuries.
Sources
- Biskup, Marian, and Gerard Labuda. Dzieje zakonu krzyżackiego w Prusach. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Morskie, 1986.
- Boockmann, Hartmut. Der Deutsche Orden: Zwölf Kapitel aus seiner Geschichte. Munich: Beck, 1981.
- Burleigh, Michael. The Third Reich: A New History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2000.
- Forey, Alan. The Military Orders: From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992.
- Housley, Norman. Contesting the Crusades. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
Related Reading
For the Nazi appropriation of the Order, see the article on the Nazi appropriation. For the modern historiography, see the article on modern historiography. For the romantic and nationalist legacy, see the cluster on the romantic and nationalist legacy. For the Order’s territorial state in Prussia, see the pillar on the Teutonic State. For the Order’s branch state in Livonia, see the pillar on Livonia. For the Order’s military vocation, see the pillar on the military activities of the Order.