Day 3 8/4: "what the $@#$ is that?!"

Today was an eye-opening day. It started out in class where we learned about how the needs of people and empires hold sway over the flow of history. Check it: In 955, the German King was victorious at the Battle of Lechfeld and gave control of Osterreich (the eastern empire) to the Babenberg family. They would become the first of two families to hold dynastic rule over the country. What was fascinating to me is the fact that rulers at the turn of the century had very few methods of telling whether or not their orders were being followed, so they had to have many capitals and places of residence in different parts of the country in order to maintain a more effective rule over their country. For example, Melk and Klosterneurburg both became places of imperial residence during the Babenberg rule. This process was indicative of the formation of more modern states, as Parsons argues, because it shows the shift away from smaller lands with territorial lords to larger holdings where law and order were to be carried out by authoritative agents. I see it as the difference between Free Imperial Cities (German equivalent of nation-states) and more current nations. As a student who is predominantly versed in United States history, it is interesting to see how European countries had a much different struggle with the establishment of their states. We divided power among the federal level and state level, where the federal laws were carried out by the individual states. The president did not have to travel to each state and see his laws obeyed, he could rely on the state’s government itself to see to that. I think that the reason for this is that we institutionalized power instead on consolidating it. The constitution was our way of creating a country, rather than giving the reigns of control to one family.
One area in which the US and Europe share similar histories in the process to state-building was the consolidation of violence. In the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (medieval period to 1806, approximately), there existed the idea of The Knight’s Right to Private Warfare. This was the result of each individual territorial ruler employing his/her own army to expand and defend his/her land. In this way they built estates. The formation of a nation, however, demanded the abolition of this practice in favor of only one army. Parsons writes that “by 1493, the Habsburgs had consolidated their position in Central Europe and were ready to move from the defensive to the offensive.” Many battles were fought between cities who wanted to keep their autonomy and the then Habsburg rulers during their dynastic rule. The end goal was to have the use of violence be consolidated to the state, thus legitimizing its power and its very existence. The same can be said for American history, as we fought wars not only against the Native Americans and the Spanish, but sometimes our own citizens (Civil War, Bloody Kansas, etc) in order to end the use of violence by parties other than the federal government. I see these two courses as a way to view the roll of any country, because the existence of a military not controlled by the government is a threat to that government. It’s why we have gun laws today. I was amazed to see that this process took its roots in history that is so far back!
After class we made a very somber journey. We were on our way to St. Stephansdom, a massive gothic church that is almost 850 years old, when it started raining. And I mean it got dark, scary, and wet. I was enjoying the change in weather until we broke out of the shopping district and beheld St. Stephansdom. The thing is a monolith. It’s domineering size and impressive gothic looks coupled with the dark rain made it an experience for all of the senses. Hollywood could barely make a more impressive scene. Even after walking all the way around the church I had to sit down and try to digest what I was seeing. No wonder there is a law in Vienna stating that no building in the city can be taller than St. Stephansdom! This law’s existence would most likely not be tolerated in the United States because we are (usually) very careful to separate church from state. Preserving this church’s impressive significance just highlights the fact that we are in a very catholic country. Parsons argues that this church is a symbol of Vienna’s survival as a Catholic country. This sentiment is true, to a degree. Obviously the Viennese want to preserve their identity by keeping St. Stephansdom as the seminal building of the whole city when one views it from afar. Yet, from a street view, the church is often times hidden from view by the expensive shopping district with a Starbucks and McDonald’s on every other corner. It is an odd locus of European and American cultures. St. Stephansdom stands as one of the Viennese most proud monuments and places of worship, but that has not stopped the encroachment of capitalism trying to pray on the tourists and their wallets. It is almost a shame that the area surrounding the church has been so developed with brand name stores, but I am impressed that this has not stopped the Viennese from preserving it as best they can.
It took about 20 minutes of staring for us to finally walk in. The interior to the church was even more impressive that the outside. It reminds me of that Disney movie Hunchback of Notre Dame. There are gothic depictions of Jesus and angels everywhere, with beautiful stain-glass windows adorning many of the walls along the church. The tour that we went on included a visit to the catacombs, which served as a mass burial site. It was definitely an eerie experience to see so many bones of people centuries gone. After we finished the macabre visit to dozens of people long dead, we headed to one of the towers of the church. The view from the top was absolutely amazing; we could practically see all of Vienna with the near panoramic vantage point that the tower offered. After some minutes of our awe-struck stay, the tour was over and we descended.
We took the public transport back to Simmering, the part of Vienna in which we were staying. Thinking about the differences between the Viennese and American systems of public transportation was astounding. Viennese subways were prompt and frequent; we never had to wait more than 5 minutes for our train to arrive. Going back and forth between the classroom, Simmering, and wherever else our adventures took us was never a difficult task. It was no wonder that many Viennese did not have a car because there was really no need for a car to go around in the city. Compared with the transport in San Francisco, for example, it is far superior. Bart alone is never discussed in a positive light because it frequently breaks, is late, or is plain unsafe to use. Muni is a little better but that still take a while and does not cover parts of the city that one would want to travel to. In addition to the underground transportation, the Viennese tram system is also very good. Most of the American tram systems that I have been on take a long time to get anywhere and/or do not extend to where people want them. Viennese trams are pretty much the exact opposite of this. By the third day we had figured out how to get almost anywhere that we wanted/needed to go in the city and we could do it fast. If America were to have such an efficient system, it would go a long way to curtailing the effects of global warming and might even have additional benefits for the environment.
Today’s blog was brought to you by the German word ‘wahrscheinlich’, which means ‘probably’!