Orders and decorations

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hilâl Nişanı (Order of the Half Moon) is considered a forerunner u. a. of the Turkish labeling system. 1799 rewarded Sultan Selim III. the British Admiral Horatio Nelson with this form of award, which was previously uncommon in the Ottoman Empire. The decoration is based on European orders, but their Christian symbolism was adapted to Ottoman conditions.

Orders and medals are awards in the form of portable badge , which, by state or state-authorized facility as a reward for services rendered or model be given behavior, as well as the loyalty to secure the auszuzeichnenden person. Orders and decorations have a political character; as state symbols they are under the special protection of the state, they serve to present itself and convey its values . The mostly public and ceremonial honoring by medals, decorations or prizes is an act of valuing and maintaining values ​​within the respective society, whereby the values ​​are first made explicit at the foundation and again at the specific award.

Early forms of ordered systems of wearable awards existed in antiquity , but they did not survive the collapse of the Roman Empire . Modern orders of merit go back historically to the Christian and secular knightly orders of the High Middle Ages . Admission to an order of chivalry, the " accolade ", presupposed a noble birth or was associated with a rise to the nobility. House and court orders are counted among the knightly orders and, together with the early orders of merit, represent transitional forms in which the knightly community gradually faded into the background and finally existed only ideally, only to disappear completely with the end of the monarchies. Many former house orders took on the character of orders of merit or were converted into orders of merit over time. The English Order of the Garter, or the Order of the Golden Fleece , which still exists today, is regarded as the archetype of the medieval order of knights and a model for the modern orders of merit that have developed from it .

The French Revolution , founding of the Legion of Honor and War of Liberation , attracted a sustainable transformation of the European and international award system according to the existing religious influence, inspired Neustiftungen, and eventually to the emergence of modern Merit and the decorations led. The difference between medals and medals is historical and primarily of a nomenclature nature, the bearers of medals were called "knights", those of medals "holders". Today this distinction is with a few exceptions such as the spiritual orders of knights or the orders of knights of the monarchies, v. a. Spain or England , for example , whose admission is often (but not always) associated with elevation to the nobility (cf. for example the title Sir ), are obsolete.

General

Today: Anti-constitutional propaganda .
On September 1, 1939, the day of the attack on Poland , Adolf Hitler renewed the Iron Cross and made the former Prussian badge of honor a National Socialist war medal. He benefited from the high moral and symbolic value of the traditional award.

Orders and badges of honor are distinctions that are intended to be worn and that make the recipient publicly recognizable. All distinctions to be worn visibly that are not expressly named medals are designated as decorations. The difference between medals and decorations consists solely in the naming and is rooted in the ideas of honor of the late 18th and 19th centuries. In modern phaleristics , the higher merit decorations are designated as medals and the lower merit decorations; originally it was common for orders were only to nobles and officers, more rarely on Civil awarded, while decorations could be purchased by anyone. The holders of an order were referred to as knights , those of an honor only as holders . Today this distinction is largely meaningless, so those entrusted with the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany ("Federal Cross of Merit ") are designated as holders , although this is expressly an order. In contrast to France, for example, where the members of the Legion of Honor are not only entitled to a place in a Paris retirement home, but also formally belong to a corporation, there is no state-organized or sponsored association of holders of the Federal Cross of Merit in Germany because of the bureaucratic associated with it Effort is seen as unacceptable to the taxpayer. Also, its awarding is not associated with any privileges, titles or rights, apart from the honorary right to wear the decoration in public.

In addition to commendations, letters of thanks, cash prizes , titles , material prizes and various other forms of state or social distinction, medals and decorations are also awarded in almost all countries of the world as a sign of a special public honor . An exception is Switzerland, which has no tradition of religious orders, does not award any medals itself, and forbids all members of the federal authorities, cantonal governments and parliaments and all members of the armed forces to accept foreign medals and titles. From September 12, 1848, when Switzerland was united by the confederation of states into a federal state , until January 1, 2000, the prohibition was enshrined in Art. 12 of the Swiss Federal Constitution (s) ; since February 1, 2001, it has been regulated at legal level. The Weimar Imperial Constitution also contained a state prohibition of awarding and accepting orders in Article 109, Paragraph 4 . Such constitutionally anchored prohibitions show the close connection between statehood and the award of medals; state awards in particular have a political character.

An award is primarily of a symbolic nature, it aims to recognize, praise and reward the person to be honored. It is intended to motivate both the recipient and the general public to continue to use their actions to serve the goals and interests of the founder or lender in the future. Some awards for special military, scientific, artistic and other merits are, in addition to being purely symbolic, also associated with material benefits (prize money, lifelong pensions, " honorary pay " etc.).

From the point of view of the awarding institution, the honored person fulfills a role model function , which it seeks to publicly highlight through the award. In doing so, she takes advantage of people's need for recognition. The constitutional lawyer Herbert Krüger traces the meaning of honors back to the theory that, alongside orders, coercion and punishment, the reward stands as a stimulus and promotion of a desirable, but not enforceable behavior of the citizens. The lender usually associates the award with the expectation of gratitude, devotion or at least loyalty. Awards can be revoked or withdrawn if the honored person does not meet the expectations placed on him, proves to be disloyal or otherwise loses his role model function.

Public honors are a form of honor and are part of the state administration or self-portrayal of the state (Krüger). In the case of state honors, the recognition consists in the fact that the honored person is visibly singled out from the crowd of other citizens. The associated effect goes in two directions: On the one hand, the honor highlights the honored person in public; on the other hand, the state advertises itself through the award by making it visible to everyone that it, as guardian of the common good, knows how to honor merits for this very thing through a public award. The aim of self-portrayal is to go beyond the mere functioning of a form and order of the activity that emphasizes the objective spiritual context, the guiding idea, the obligatory mandate or the legitimation principle of this state activity, makes it publicly visible and thereby in the represents the real sense.

The state uses symbols and rituals primarily for self-expression. They have always been a non-verbal, generally understandable form of political communication. State symbols are of outstanding importance for the integration of citizens into the state community and for the existence of the community. Symbols and rituals help citizens identify with the state, its institutions and officials, its values ​​and its politics . The special meaning of state symbols is underpinned by legal norms or by constitutional norms with which a state maintains and protects them.

History and manifestations

Grave goods of Queen Ahhotep I ; the chain with the three flies, gold of valor , represents an early military award.
The epitaph of Marcus Caelius shows the centurion in full decoration of his bravery decorations: five phalerae on the breastplate, two torques hanging down on ribbons from the shoulders , armillae on the wrists and the corona civica on the head .

Long before there were orders and decorations in the modern sense, wearable decorations were used in numerous cultures to honor and publicize deserved personalities. Even in early cultures there was a need to visibly express praise or reward. After a successful hunt, hunters and nomads adorned themselves with the symbols of their hunting successes such as animal teeth, claws, feathers or furs.

The custom of handing over gold as a reward to well-deserved officials and soldiers has been handed down from the Old Kingdom of Egypt. The gold of honor was given to those to be honored by the Pharaoh in the form of various pieces of jewelry, for example bracelets, neck collars or chains. In the New Kingdom there are often pictorial representations of public awards in private graves, with the Pharaoh standing at the apparition window and handing the honor gold to officials below. Military merit was assessed on the basis of hands or genitals that were cut off by the enemy, which were then counted and recorded by scribes after the battle. The bearers of the trophies were rewarded with weapons, feathers, jewelry, prisoners of war, clothing or land. In this context, a necklace with three golden flies (the fly stood for the military virtues of perseverance and tenacity.) As a pendant, the gold of bravery (nbw n qn.t), the general and officers as a gratification from the hands of the pharaoh should be emphasized received. The autobiographical inscriptions in the grave of Ahmose Pennechbet in el-Kab , which contain detailed lists of his awards, give an idea of ​​the diversity of the labeling system at that time .

The existence of well-ordered state systems of wearable awards for military merits, combined with award regulations according to status, merit and achievement, has been regarded as certain in the vast majority of phaleristic literature since antiquity. It is believed that they developed from the practice of institutionalized distribution of spoils of war . In Greece, such rewards were called ta phalara (τά φάλαρα; breast ornament, especially for horses) and in Rome they were called phalera . The term phaleristics for religious orders is derived from this .

Antiquity

In ancient Athens it was the custom to publicly decorate citizens for gifts or other services to the polis . The decoration originally consisted of branches of the olive tree , later gold replicas were given. At the Olympic Games , not only the winners of the competitions were wreathed, but between the competitions also citizens who in some way rendered a service to the community, whereby “citizens” were exclusively men. In addition, there are other public honors such as proclamations, feasts in the Prytaneion , inscriptions, statues and herms , as well as paintings and depictions of heroes . Ta phalara , such as hand-sized plaques or tags in the shape of a circle or crescent , were awarded for military merits . They were made of precious metal or bronze and often had a gold or silver plating. They were originally attached to the horses' straps and bridles, so they belonged exclusively to the cavalry. Later, smaller versions that were worn on the breastplate became established. Foot soldiers received weapons of honor in the form of special lances and shields as well as drinking bowls.

The criticism of it is as old as this practice of public honors. In his politics, Aristotle dealt with the question of whether "those who have done something for the benefit of the state should be given an honorary award" and comes to the conclusion that such a law sounds good, but should not be passed. because it entails envy and slander and the question of what is useful and what is harmful can lead to disputes and shocks in the state.

The Romans' labeling system was much more complex . With their large-scale campaigns of conquest, they were far more dependent on the disciplining functions of a military reward system ( dona militaria ) than, for example, the Greeks. While it was comparatively clear at the time of the republic , it included a very extensive and differentiated range of awards during the imperial era with its large standing army.

There were the phalers adopted from the Greeks, medals that were attached to the breastplate with images of animals, mythical creatures or gods, metal bracelets ( armillae ) for bravery, wreaths and crowns (coronae), for example the citizen's crown ( corona civica ), lances of honor ( hasta pura ) and the torques adopted by the Celts as an award for bravery for lower ranks. The highest form of award was the triumphal procession , which was reserved for military leaders and later exclusively for emperors.

The earliest traditional awards were bowls ( patera , patella ) and lances, phalerae were added later. According to Polybius, in the Roman Republic there was no rank-related difference in military awards. Since Augustus at the latest , however, a distinction has been made between higher and lower ranks. While phalers were given to members of all ranks, other badges were an expression of a hierarchy. Regardless of merit or performance, higher ranking groups received different awards than lower ones. The basic requirement for the award was not merit or performance, but Roman citizenship, which in itself already represented an award. The soldiers received the decoration directly from their general as personal recognition. The close connection between the award and the general is shown, among other things, by the fact that at the funeral ceremony of Augustus the soldiers threw the awards given by the deceased into the stake.

The association of awards with terms such as “honor”, ​​“merit”, “bravery”, etc., which is still effective today , is rooted in the distinction system of antiquity. However, there is no direct development from the ancient models to today's labeling system. Orders and decorations, as they are awarded today as a visible sign of public praise, have their origins in the knightly orders of the early Middle Ages.

Order of knights

See also : Order of Knights , List of Orders of Knights .

Spiritual orders of knights

The Portuguese Ordem Militar de Avis emerged from a brotherhood of knights founded in 1162, which was dedicated to the fight against the Moors . Four years later, Alfonso I of Portugal officially recognized the brotherhood as an order of knights. In 1789 Maria I of Portugal secularized the order and converted it into a three-class Military Merit Order. Since 1918 the order has five classes.

The Hospitaller and knight orders are considered to be the real ancestors of modern religious orders . These shaped two essential characteristics that have existed in religious orders for centuries:

  • The increasing power and geographical expansion of the religious orders of knights made strict admission criteria necessary; knights were a privileged elite. Membership in such an order was considered an honor and meant social prestige and success.
  • Its five-level hierarchical structure in grandmasters , knights, priests, brothers and donors became a model for the formation of orders later.

At the time of the Crusades , in the 11th century, the first religious orders of knights emerged from some religious orders. The term "order" is derived from the Latin word ordo (order, status). In addition to purely religious activities, which every monastic order had to perform, such as proselytizing and religious exercises, as well as the care and care of sick pilgrims, the active protection and defense of Christian positions of power, were responsible for the order of knights. This included the protection of the Holy Sepulcher , the protection of pilgrims and the fight against "infidels".

The Knights of St. John and the Knights Templar are considered to be the first of this kind . The Order of St. John was founded in 1099 as the Order of Hospitallers and emerged from a cooperative founded by Italian merchants that ran a hostel for Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem. In the 12th century he also took on military duties. The Knights Templar was founded around 1118 as a new knightly order with French characteristics.

The Teutonic Order , also known as the Order of Teutonic Knights or Teutonic Knights, gained importance . It was founded in 1190 on the occasion of an epidemic during the siege of Acre as a nursing community and ran a hospital, shortly afterwards it also took on military duties. During the German Crusade in March 1198, at the instigation of Wolfger von Erla and Konrad von Querfurt , the community was elevated to the status of an order of knights based on the model of the Templars and Johanniter.

Members of religious orders of knights wore a cross on their cloaks or cloaks (called clamys ) as an external badge and decorative symbol ; the Johanniter a white cross on black clamys, the Templars a red, eight-pointed cross on white clamys, and the Teutonic Knights, also on white clamys, a black cross with widened ends , which served as a template for the Iron Cross in 1813 , the Lazarites a green one Cross on clamys.

Secular orders of knights

The Duke of Marlborough in the costume and with the insignia of the Order of the Garter . The blue ribbon, which gives the order its name, is worn under the left knee.

The failure of the crusade policy resulted in the decline of the religious orders of knights, which were increasingly subject to the political goals and power struggles of secular rulers.

From the 13th and 14th centuries, the sovereigns began to found spiritual, secular knightly orders based on the model. In contrast to the religious orders of knights, which were largely independent, self-administered and in some cases represented state-like structures themselves, the secular orders of knights were from the outset an instrument of secular rulers who also functioned as grandmasters of all their orders. Their statutes stipulated not only the conditions of admission, but also the costume and the medal, i.e. the insignia that the members of the order were supposed to make outwardly recognizable, a symbol to be worn constantly was the outward sign of belonging to the community. In this context, portable medals, jewels often in the form of a cross or star, acquired special significance.

Admission to this order was an act of sovereign grace and courtly grace , it served the close bond with the sovereign and signified an incentive and obligation to him. Corporations of this kind had an elitist character, they were reserved exclusively for the (high) nobility and their number of members was strictly limited. In the course of this development, the original religious purpose of the knightly orders faded noticeably, religious vows lost importance, and finally the orders no longer had any special tasks or goals that went beyond the common dynastic or political interests of their members.

The Dannebrogorden was founded in 1671 by Christian V of Denmark and Norway. According to legend, it goes back to the early 13th century. In 1808 King Friedrich VI reformed . the former knight or house order and made an order of merit based on the model of the Legion of Honor.

The most important secular religious orders include:

House Order

With the development of absolutist states in the 17th and 18th centuries, a general change in religious orders began. The orders evolved into house or court orders , and decoration gradually became an end in itself. House orders are considered to be a form of secular knightly orders, but they mark the boundary between the order and the transition from personal communities to insignia as a reward for merit. The community often only existed symbolically, but the insignia symbolized a special relationship to the sovereign and thus influence at court. Originally one class and only intended for the sovereign, his family and a limited number of noble favorites, many former house orders evolved into orders of merit over the years .

Landlords donated house orders to bind influential noblemen to themselves and to reward them for their services. These were mostly single-class awards. As with the secular knightly orders, the Grand Master was the respective sovereign; the princes of the ruling house were members by birth, but were not included in the number of members specified in the statutes. External signs of house orders were, as in the case of the secular knightly orders, their insignia: the order cross (order sign, jewel or order decoration) , the order star (breast star) , the sash , the order chain (collane) and the costume , which, although belonging to of an elite society, but were no longer a sign of membership in a classical religious community. In contrast to the “real” knight orders, which had their own land and property and were formed through their own admission procedures, house orders had no property or funds of their own, but were drawn from the sovereign's assignments. Its sponsors included leading statesmen as well as influential representatives of the Church and the humanities. The admission, or the award, was associated with various honorary rights and material benefits, but also with various obligations. The rights included, among other things, access to the court, the granting of audiences with the sovereign or pension payments and monetary endowments. The duties included wearing the decorations in public, participating in the ceremonial of the order, but above all being unconditionally faithful to the ruling house.

House orders were initially not divided into classes and were reserved exclusively for the (high) nobility, which gradually changed as the bourgeoisie grew stronger. Some house orders were later also awarded to non-nobles, whereby, as for example with the Order of the Black Eagle , the entrusted received a coat of arms in addition to the insignia , which raised them to the hereditary nobility. In addition, many orders established a higher rank at court; Thus the bearers of Prussia's highest order, the Order of the Black Eagle, took a position in the court hierarchy immediately behind the highest court offices and in front of the cardinals.

Other important house orders:

Merit awards

Order of Merit

The Pour le Mérite was the first order specifically dedicated to "merit". It was founded in 1740 by Frederick the Great as a house order, originally had only one class and no statutes. The principles of the award were nowhere specified, what counted as merit and who received the medal, the king decided at his own discretion. From 1798 the order officially carried the designation "Order of Merit". As part of the Prussian Order of reform walked Friedrich Wilhelm III. the Pour le Mérite in a pure military merit order. On January 18, 1810, he decreed that the order should only be awarded "for merit gained in the fight against the enemy". With the abdication of King Wilhelm II on November 28, 1918, the order expired. The honorary salary associated with the order since 1810 was also granted in the Federal Republic. The last owner, Ernst Jünger , died on February 17, 1998.

An order system with an elitist character, limited to the (high) nobility, such as the personal communities of secular or spiritual knightly orders but also the house orders, excluded large parts of the population from the award system, although working in the interests of the state and loyal to the sovereign. The absolutist state produced a large number of different authorities and a standing army, which in turn represented important pillars of power. The basic prerequisite for being able to organize and coordinate these facilities and institutions centrally were reliable, loyal officials and officers. A newly created service aristocracy as well as experts from the bourgeoisie increasingly took on important functions in offices and authorities. In addition, the 18th century was marked by numerous dynastic wars. No sovereign could afford to limit rewards for military and war merit to representatives of the nobility, which resulted in a fundamental change in the religious system and found its expression in the emergence of the Order of Merit. The early civil and military orders of merit of the late 17th and 18th centuries are characterized by their transitional character within the development history of the award system.

If acceptance into a knightly order was a sovereign favor and mainly associated with a special relationship of loyalty to the sovereign, orders of merit also represent a sovereign instrument for reward. These changed contents and objectives of the orders of merit expanded the group of people eligible for awards beyond the nobility , it was important to be able to reward merits in a wide variety of areas and positions. This led to a drastic increase in the orders endowed in the individual states and made it seem sensible to establish a hierarchy for the individual orders of a country. The order system became more differentiated and differentiated between certain high orders, which were mainly awarded to members of ruling houses and members of very old nobility, orders of knights, which mostly presupposed ancestral nobility, and the actual order of merit. The possibility of awarding medals to commoners corresponded to the social structures and requirements of the late 18th century. Ancestral needle was no longer a mandatory requirement. Instead, the award was combined with an elevation to the nobility, whereby the content and award modalities of the early orders of merit remained attached to the absolutist system; Farmers and craftsmen, ordinary soldiers and NCOs were still excluded from the award system. Orders of merit were sometimes awarded exclusively for merits of a certain type, for example military, artistic or scientific. In addition, a system of different classes was introduced within the individual orders in order to be able to make gradations according to rank or merit of the people to be honored.

One of the historically most important orders of merit is the Order of Louis, the Ordre royal et militaire de Saint-Louis , founded in 1693 by the "Sun King" Louis XIV . It is considered the oldest order of merit and at the same time the first purely military order. The purpose of the foundation was to reward Catholic officers for twenty years of loyal service or for military success. The motive for the foundation of the ruler, who was plagued by chronic financial difficulties, consisted of the inexpensive compensation of his well-deserved soldiers by means of a badge recognizing the wearer instead of material benefits.

An essential innovation of the Ludwig Order compared to the previous house and court orders was its structure, the order consisted of three classes:

This tripartite division corresponded both to the social structure of the 18th century and to the moral and honorary concepts of absolutism. It enabled generals , staff officers and subordinate officers to be rewarded according to their position in the military hierarchy. The award conditions were different for each class and were such that they could only be met by representatives of a certain ranking group. Grand crosses were only awarded for winning a battle, defending or conquering a fortress or successfully ending a campaign, which could only be achieved by an army commander, a commander, marshal or general.

The Ludwig Order became the model for numerous military orders of merit, such as the Saxon Military Order of St. Heinrich , the Austrian Military Maria Theresa Order , the Bavarian Military Max Joseph Order or the Baden Military Karl Friedrich -Orders of Merit , but also for civilian orders of merit such as the Wasa Order , the Order of St. Anne or the Order de Isabel la Católica . In the civil area, too, the order classes reflected the state structure and corresponded to the status of administrative authorities as well as the rank of posts and functions, so that grand crosses were only awarded to high court and state officials, e.g. ministers.

The sovereigns began to bind not only nobles, but increasingly also members of other classes with wearable badges or to reward them for the services they performed. Whereas the previous orders were still communities with narrowly defined tasks tied to the founder, in which only a few people from a limited group were accepted, the orders of merit were only a means and instrument for the appreciation and rewarding of services rendered. The award was no longer made through acceptance into a real or symbolic community, but exclusively through the award itself, that is, through the handing over of a medal. The given insignia was no longer an outward sign of membership of an order, but the awarded jewel, the order decoration itself, was the award. If the term “order” originally stood for an institution, one was no longer accepted into an order (a religious community), but was given an order (a badge), which was often associated with the award of offices and dignities. "Award" is to be understood literally in this case. The medal was lent by the sovereign or on his behalf for life; after the death of the borrower, the insignia had to be returned by the heirs or descendants to the founder or to organs commissioned by him. The return obligation still applies to the orders of many countries, for example the Pour le Mérite peace class . In addition, affiliated decorations and medals were increasingly assigned to the orders so that bourgeois or subaltern could also be awarded.

Modern orders of merit, for example the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (Federal Cross of Merit ), often have a division that is based on the Legion of Honor , whereby the individual classes can also be further subdivided; In this case one speaks of steps. As a rule, they are no longer awarded according to social or military rank, but on the basis of meritocratic points of view. However, even with the Federal Cross of Merit, the highest level, the special level of the Grand Cross , is reserved exclusively for heads of state.

Legion of Honor
Grand Cross of the Légion d'Honneur . Napoleon's break with the previous Christian-influenced order traditions is also reflected in the design of the insignia, which shows a five-pointed star instead of the cross. Regardless of this, the new award could not deny its monarchist roots and was soon only called "la croix" by the common people.

The French Revolution of 1789 radically broke with all monarchist traditions in the first few years, it eliminated the symbols and institutions of the ancien régime and with it the religious order of the nobility based on class and courtesy. But the new order did not want to forego the possibility of awarding state rewards.

Through a mass exodus, the Levée en masse , France created a popular army for the first time during the coalition wars in which members of all classes fought side by side without distinction. The maintenance of morality and discipline, as well as the motivation of those involved in the war, made a reward system appear necessary and expedient, since coercion and punishment, as was customary in the premodern army , would have been incompatible with the new self-confidence of the French and would not have been conducive to patriotism . The changed social conditions, however, did not allow recourse to the religious system of dynastic times, which is why they initially made use of monetary gifts or weapons of honor in the form of engraved swords and sabers. Article 87 of the Constitution of December 13, 1799 stated that national rewards were to be given for merit in the war, and according to the decree of December 25, 1799, soldiers and officers who excelled in war should be given honorary weapons. This form of award, based on the ancient models, corresponded to the Enlightenment ideal of égalité , as it could be acquired by anyone regardless of social position or military rank. The newly created civil administrative and state authorities were also based on the active cooperation of representatives of all, including the lower classes of the population, which expanded the group of potentially rewarded persons to include non-military.

The first consul and later Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte found this form of distinction unsatisfactory, as it contradicted French traditions. After tough negotiations, the National Assembly finally accepted his proposal on May 19, 1802 to establish a Legion of Honor ( Légion d'honneur ). To critics who feared a restoration of monarchist forms and institutions, he argued that the revolution had not changed the character of the French and that the feeling of honor still preceded the ideas of freedom and equality:

“I bet… that you can't name an old and new republic that hasn't given me any awards. And that's called toys and tinsel! Very good! But you guide people with such tinsel. I would not say that from the lectern, but anything can be said in a council of wise statesmen. I do not believe that the French people love freedom and equality. The French have not changed in the last few years of the revolution. You only have one passion, and it's called 'honor'. But you have to cherish and cultivate this passion and give awards! "

- Napoleon I.
On July 14, 1804, Napoléon awarded the newly created decoration for the first time; Contemporary painting by Jean-Baptiste Debret .

In order to allay concerns and not to remind of the extinct institutions of the Bourbon monarchy , the word “order” was avoided and instead terms were borrowed from the military language of the Romans. The Legion ( Latin legio , from legere “read” in the sense of: “read out”, “select”) consisted of 16 cohorts , corresponding to the number of regional regions . The number of members was limited, each cohort consisted of 350 knights, 30 officers, 20 commanders and 7 grand officers. Despite the connection to ancient terms, the new award could not deny its ideal roots in the traditions of royal orders. The respective head of state is the Grand Master of the Legion of Honor, subordinate to the Grand Board of Directors and the Grand Chancellor. The function of the board of directors corresponds roughly to that of the chapter of an order of knights. Just as when entering a secular order of knights, the "legionaries" swore an oath upon entry, with which they expressed their loyalty to the respective head of state and to the form of government. A chapter of the Foundation Ordinance regulated the financial matters, as the admission was associated with a pension entitlement. The Legion of Honor considered civilian and military merits in equal measure; for the first time, admission to the order was independent of rank, status and denomination. Also new was the stipulation that each newly accepted member initially held the lowest rank, that of a knight. When Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, he changed the statutes of the Legion of Honor, changed it from a partnership to an order of merit and introduced a badge that was visible to wear.

The structure and manner of wearing the Legion of Honor became the model for many modern orders of merit.

In contrast to the one or three-class structure of previous house and merit orders, the Legion of Honor initially had a four-class structure and later a five-class structure. This eventually developed into the international standard for the most important civil orders of merit, including the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany :

The French Revolution and the Legion of Honor as an outward sign of social change influenced the award system in other countries. Numerous merit awards were newly created and covered a wide range of services and earnings in various areas, professions, offices and positions. Merits in the scientific-technical and in the military area as well as in the accomplishment of administrative tasks were honored by the awarding of orders of merit. Many existing orders were expanded to include additional classes or associated decorations in the form of a medal, a cross, or the like, so that lower professional groups in the state apparatus and lower military ranks could also enjoy awards. In technical terminology, such decorations that are attached to an order are referred to as affiliated medals or crosses.

Badge of honor

Badge of Honor of the Bundeswehr (left: front with ribbon buckle, right: back)

The 19th century was marked by enormous technical and scientific progress as well as general industrialization, as a result of which the bourgeoisie and the working class gained increasing political importance. The social and political changes of this time were reflected in the award system and led to the establishment of a new class of wearable awards which were not based on historical models and which also do not belong to the classification of orders - the decorations.

Since the end of the 18th century, medals for bravery, commemoration and merit were increasingly created for teams and non-commissioned officers, as they were denied an order. Occasionally these badges were assigned lower ranking (affiliated) to existing medals, so that until the end of the First World War the medal level awarded for many awards was not based on the size of the earned merit, but solely on the rank of the person to be lent.

Badges of honor were intended primarily for members of the lower classes and strata who were excluded from the previous award system due to their social position or their area of ​​responsibility and work. Under the conditions of the industrial age, the decorations finally acquired a more general and comprehensive meaning, they penetrated almost all economic, political and military areas. Their numbers were extraordinarily high and still are in many states today. In the kingdoms of Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony and Württemberg there were 137 different decorations at the end of the 19th century. Between 1800 and 1945 more than 3,500 state wearable awards of all categories and classes were created in the German states alone. They were no longer created only for military and warlike merits, but increasingly also for those in the civil service, in individual professional groups and branches of the economy, in the areas of humanity, sport, art and science. Badges for merit and commemoration can be of a governmental or non-governmental nature, they can be regional or municipal awards or awards from parties, societies, associations, organizations or companies. In the execution they usually have medals , crosses, shields, clasps or buckles. In addition to gold and silver, brass, bronze and iron are also used as materials, e.g. Sometimes with additional editions made of precious metals. But cuffs and other textile patches and applications are also used. Portraits, inscriptions and dates, choice of materials and design provide information about the occasion and type of the respective award. The portraits and trophies often show a high level of craftsmanship on the part of the medalists.

Iron Cross from 1813, Friedrich Wilhelm III. left the individual free to call themselves “owner” or “knight”.

Since the wars to overthrow the French Revolution , it had become customary to award specially minted medals on the occasion of victorious battles. From 1813 onwards, almost all sovereigns whose armies or fleets were fighting against Napoleon created war commemorative coins that were mostly minted from the metal (bronze) of the captured artillery. They were followed by service awards for the standing army, the police, the fire brigade and customs, as well as commemorative medals for participating in certain campaigns and battles, centenary celebrations and government anniversaries, coronations, princely birthdays and weddings. The gradations of the decorations differed, if there were gradations, less in the way they were worn than in shape, size and material. They were usually worn on a ribbon in the buttonhole.

The turning point in the Prussian labeling system marked the 1813 by King Friedrich Wilhelm III. Donated Iron Cross. Regardless of social origin, denomination, rank or status, everyone was entitled to war merit, and thus for the first time realized the idea of ​​a uniform award for officers, non-commissioned officers and crew ranks. In the wars of liberation all other medals and decorations were largely lost, generals and common soldiers were to receive the same reward for merit. The two lower classes, EK II, EK I, were no longer awarded on the basis of the rank and status of the borrower, but in ascending order each for a further, new earnings. The criteria for obtaining the Grand Cross, on the other hand, were such that only generals could meet them.

The Iron Cross was originally intended as a one-off foundation and its award was limited to the struggle for liberation against Napoleon's foreign rule. The content of the foundation and the practice of awarding the coveted award were only made possible by the civil reform work in the state and army from 1808 to 1813. The cautious and correct awarding of actual merits ensured the Iron Cross a high symbolic value, and its bearers enjoyed the highest esteem. The foundations were renewed on the occasion of the Franco-German War (1870–1871) and the First World War (1914–1918). With the knowledge of the moral value of this particular award, the National Socialists consciously built on the Prussian tradition in 1939 and made the award into a German war medal.

The labeling system in Germany

See also : List of German orders and decorations .

The German Imperium

Order of the German States; Illustration from Meyer's Large Conversation Lexicon from 1908.

Between 1871 and 1918 there were no imperial orders in Germany . The award of titles and the foundation and award of medals were reserved rights of the sovereigns, and the numerous medals of the empire were the medals of the individual federal states of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, etc. The religious system at that time was extraordinarily diverse, as each of the 22 federal princes had their own medals awarded, often several different ones.

It is true that both Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II donated commemorative coins and decorations in their capacity as German emperors , for example the colonial commemorative coin from 1912 or the wound badge donated on March 3, 1918 at the repeated request of the Supreme Army Command . On the other hand, both emperors established and awarded medals exclusively in their capacity as kings of Prussia. However, since the Prussian medals, especially the war medals, were very numerous given to members of other countries and came from the head of the Reich, to a certain extent they acquired the character and significance of imperial medals; This was especially true for the Iron Cross or the Pour le Mérite , which during the First World War were not only awarded within the Prussian troop contingent, but also to members of the Bavarian, Saxon, Württemberg etc.

Weimar Republic

Pour le Mérite for Science and the Arts . The traditional Order of Merit, which goes back to a foundation by Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia in 1842, lost its sovereign with the end of the Prussian monarchy, and it was threatened by the prohibition of the Weimar Republic. After a few years of uncertainty, the theologian and then chancellor Adolf von Harnack managed to secure the continuation of the order with a lot of persuasion and negotiating skills. In 1924, the Prussian state government approved the order as the “Free Association of Knights of the Order Pour le Mérite”, after having already granted elections a year earlier.

With the November Revolution, the German religious system came to a temporary end. According to Article 109 of the Weimar Imperial Constitution (WRV) of August 11, 1919, medals and decorations were no longer allowed to be awarded by the state and no German was allowed to accept titles or medals from other states. However, the prohibition of religious orders was not consistently enforced, it allowed exceptions and was circumvented or ignored.

Awards that were acquired before the Imperial Constitution came into force could continue to be worn. Also excluded from the prohibition were, according to Art. 175 WRV, awards of awards “for services in the war years 1914 to 1919”, which had not been rewarded until then. According to the guidelines of the decree of the last Prussian War Minister Walther Reinhardt of July 12, 1919, the Iron Cross was awarded until 1925, among other things. The Wound Badge , donated in 1918, was awarded until December 31, 1924, preceded by an announcement in the German Reichsanzeiger on December 24, 1918, in which it said: "This badge is not a medal or badge of honor, it is still awarded" Order ban was circumvented. The award of war awards was finally stopped by a decree of March 7, 1925.

Article 109 of the Imperial Constitution only applied to government agencies. Private associations such as war clubs, troop comradeships and associations of any kind were free to donate and award awards, which was widely used for business reasons. There were a number of non-governmental awards, commemorative and participation badges that shot up like mushrooms after the war and were awarded by private associations, mainly veterans' associations and voluntary corps, for example the Kyffhäuser Memorial Medal, the Schlageterschild or the Langemark Cross. ( See also: List of Freikorps Awards ) However, these were not medals or decorations, they enjoyed no legal protection and were often awarded according to opaque criteria or against payment. Official recognition as an award for the Baltic Cross and the Silesian Eagle , both donated in 1919, was first issued by the National Socialists in May 1933 and enshrined in the law on titles, medals and decorations of 1934 (RGBl. IS 379). All other private awards were no longer allowed to be worn by the regulation implementing the law on titles, medals and decorations of 1935 (RGBl. IS 1341).

Art. 109 WRV was not consistently observed even by the state, although it was addressed to them alone. The foundation of the colonial badge on April 18, 1922 by the Reich Ministry for Reconstruction was legally questionable . The ban was eventually circumvented by replacing the originally planned inscription “For services to the German colonies” with “Südsee-Afrika-Kiautschou”, thus turning the honorary symbol into a memorial. The donations of the " commemorative badge for the crew of the airships " and the " combat vehicle commemorative badge " by Reichswehr Minister Otto Geßler were expressly made as "memorial badges".

The eagle shield of the German Reich donated by President Friedrich Ebert on November 15, 1922 , the highest distinction of the Weimar Republic , and the Goethe Medal donated by President Paul von Hindenburg on March 22, 1932, Goethe's hundredth anniversary of his death, were also not subject to the ban for art and science , since these were not portable awards , but so-called "showcase orders" that could only be set up.

Another possibility to circumvent the state prohibition of orders was to state recognition of awards that were awarded by non-state bodies. The German Red Cross Decoration of Honor , donated in 1922, was designed as a badge of honor that was not awarded by the state or a state agency, but by the President of the German Red Cross with state approval. The two-class badge of honor of the DRK was u. a. used within diplomacy to compensate for the lack of compatible awards in international traffic.

With the extensive tolerance of the Reich government, the states introduced or reintroduced various awards, for example rescue medals or various fire brigade decorations . Former sovereigns also continued to award their medals and decorations, but now as private individuals. T. until after the end of the Second World War . Such awards were retrospectively legalized in 1937 by the law on titles, medals and decorations , provided they were made by November 16, 1935. However, this legalization only concerned the wearing of the awards; Any elevations into the personal or hereditary nobility ( ennoblement ) associated with some medals were not affected and consequently remained ineffective.

German Empire in the time of National Socialism

Cross of Honor awarded in 1935 to those who participated in the war in 1914/1918

In stark contrast to the Weimar Republic , the National Socialist regime made extensive use of the means of conferring external honors . Following the enactment of the Enabling Act, the legal basis for this was formed by the law on titles, medals and decorations of April 7, 1933 as well as the supplementary law of May 15, 1934 and finally the law on titles, medals and decorations of July 1, 1937.

After 1945

After the end of the war , Art. IV of the Control Council Act No. 8 of November 30, 1945 prohibited the wearing, lending and acceptance of all military and civil medals, medals and decorations of all kinds. The prohibition was relaxed with Act No. 7 of the Allied High Commission of November 21 , 1945 September 1949. The restrictions on endowing and awarding new awards were removed. However, it was forbidden to wear any medals, decorations, badges and badges of rank of the former German Wehrmacht , the NSDAP or any affiliated or subordinate organizations. With reference to the wording of the relevant English (former German armed forces) or French (anciennes forces armées allemandes) text, the occupying powers understood all former German armed forces under "German Wehrmacht" . As a result of this interpretation, the wearing of awards and badges from the First World War was in fact prohibited. This ban remained even after the end of the occupation statute valid addition, since according to the Paris Agreements "are repealed remain in force until now by the competent German legislators" of 23 October 1954, the legislation adopted by the occupation authorities.

German Democratic Republic

The GDR created itself from 7 October 1949, a standalone award essence, being geared to the Soviet model. By 1965 there were almost 100 foundations, orders, prizes, honorary degrees and various medals for military and civilian services. Design, content and award modalities were based on the requirements of socialist construction, corresponded to the political and ideological orientation of the state and reflected the SED leadership's understanding of tradition. Various economic, political and historical events often led to changes in the design of the awards and were used by the SED leadership as an opportunity to donate new awards. The state awards system in the GDR covered almost all areas of social life (see also the list of state and non-state awards in the GDR ). There were also a large number of non-governmental decorations from parties, companies and organizations. In connection with an inflationary award practice, this led to a devaluation of the GDR's labeling system.

Federal Republic of Germany

Federal Cross of Merit and shoulder ribbon (part of the "Great Cross of Merit with Star and Shoulder Ribbon"; the extra star is missing in the picture)

The prohibition of Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution was not incorporated into the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany . Therefore, there were no legal obstacles in the way of a revival of the religious system. However, the excessive award practice of the Nazi regime had left its mark and inflicted serious damage on the reputation of medals and decorations in the Federal Republic. As a result, the revival of the religious order in the Federal Republic was a decision of great political significance and by no means a matter of course. Federal President Theodor Heuss considered a ban on orders based on the Weimar model to be a state and psychological error and justified his intention to establish an order of merit:

“The trust that people will find their satisfaction in the knowledge that they have done their best for the community has often led to great disappointments. To create the opportunity to be able to recognize exceptional achievements for the construction, consolidation and progress of a state community through a medal is a simple requirement of the state . State medals and decorations can help to create an integrating bond between the state and its citizens; they can thus support state morality. "

Because of the difficult situation after the Second World War, the young Federal Republic could not and did not want to do without the integrative value of medals and decorations. In addition, there were foreign policy considerations, as almost all states, regardless of their political orientation, use a system of state honors in the form of medals in diplomatic dealings. On September 7, 1951, Heuss donated the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany : “With the desire to visibly express appreciation and gratitude to men and women of the German people and abroad [...] in the political, economic-social and spiritual fields Work served to rebuild the fatherland. "

This foundation was not entirely undisputed among constitutional lawyers , the dispute was sparked by the question of its legal basis. It was generally of the opinion that the law on titles, medals and decorations of July 1, 1937, had not survived the collapse of the Nazi regime, since, because it was completely tailored to its values ​​and the power of the Führer, it was replaced by Articles 123ff . GG was withdrawn from reception in applicable law. It was unclear, however, whether the Federal President ipso iure has the right to donate and award medals and decorations, i.e. it is derived from the nature of his office, or whether he requires authorization from the legislature because of such far-reaching changes in the legal situation exceed the scope of action of the executive . The law on titles, medals and decorations of July 26, 1957 finally put an end to the debate and legalized the previous foundations.

Not only the federal government, but also the federal states reintroduced numerous orders and decorations after the Second World War and after the fall of the Wall. In some cases, existing awards were reactivated as early as the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as the State Medal for Agriculture and Forestry in Baden-Württemberg in 1818 , the Gold Medal of Honor in Bremen in 1843 , the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art in 1853 , the Bremen Rescue Medal donated in 1908 or the Hamburg Rescue Medal donated before the end of the war in 1918 . A more detailed overview of the orders and decorations of the federal states is provided by the list of German orders and decorations # Orders and decorations of the federal states .

The labeling system in Switzerland

See also: List of Swiss orders and decorations .

Switzerland is generally considered to be one of the few countries that do not award medals to their citizens. This has been the case since the Federal Assembly decided on September 12, 1848. Article 12 of the Federal Constitution of the time states that "the members of the federal authorities, the federal civil and military officials and the federal representatives or commissioners from foreign governments may not accept pensions or salaries, titles, gifts or medals". Honorable awards, however, are known, for example the Golden Medal of Honor and the Silver Lion in the Canton of Zurich .

Quotes

"Titles and medals keep some brothels in the crowd." ( Johann Wolfgang von Goethe )

"Orders are letters of exchange drawn on public opinion: their value is based on the issuer's credit." ( Arthur Schopenhauer )

"Orders are earned, earned, earned or grounded." ( Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke )

“What is a medal? A cost-saving object that makes it possible to satisfy a lot of vanity with little metal. "( Aristide Briand )

“You get the first medal because you don't have one yet; all others because you already have one. "( Gustav Heinemann )

"I feel sorry for everyone who feels half-naked without a medal on their chests." ( Gustav Heinemann )

See also

literature

  • Václav Měřička : The Book of Orders and Awards . Verlag Werner Dausien, 2nd edition 1990, ISBN 3-7684-1680-1 .
  • Eckart Henning , Dietrich Herfurth: medals and decorations. Handbook of Phaleristics . Böhlau, Cologne 2010, ISBN 978-3-412-20617-8 .
  • Jörg Nimmergut : Order of Europe . Battenberg, Regenstauf 2007, ISBN 978-3-86646-020-1 .
  • Ralph Winkle: Thanks from the fatherland. A symbolic history of the Iron Cross 1914 to 1936 . Essen 2007, ISBN 978-3-89861-610-2 .
  • Ralph Winkle: People's orders and uniforms. Symbolic politics in the disciplinary society of the 19th century ; In: Elisabeth Hackspiel-Mikosch (Hrsg.), Stefan Haas (Hrsg.): The civil uniform as symbolic communication . Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 978-3-515-08858-9 .
  • Ralph Winkle: For a symbolic history of military orders and decorations ; In Nikolaus Buschmann, Horst Carl (ed.): The experience of the war. Historical perspectives from the French Revolution to the Second World War . Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn 2001, ISBN 978-3-506-74478-4 .
  • Ralph Winkle: On the importance of the iron cross. A folklore analysis of symbols ; In Gottfried Korff (Ed.): KriegsVolksKunde. For binding experience through symbol formation . Tübingen Association for Folklore 2005, ISBN 3-932512-28-6 .
  • Werner Otto Hütte: The history of the Iron Cross and its significance for the Prussian and German labeling system from 1813 to the present . Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn , 1967, DNB 482182385
  • Ludgera Vogt : On the logic of honor in contemporary society . Differentiation, power, integration . Suhrkamp Verlag 1997, ISBN 978-3-518-28906-8 .
  • Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German orders and decorations . 6th edition, Heymanns, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 .
  • Jürgen Hartmann: State ceremony . Heymanns, Cologne 2007, ISBN 978-3-452-26564-7 .
  • Alois Friedel: German state symbols. Origin and meaning of political symbolism in Germany . Athenaeum, Bonn 1968, DNB 456665293
  • Werner Honig: The honor in the buttonhole. Orders and decorations through the ages . Bergisch Gladbach 1986, ISBN 3-404-60143-2 .
  • Horst Fuhrmann : Pour le mérite. About the visualization of merits; a historical reflection. Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1992, ISBN 3-7995-4159-4 .
  • Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - From the history of a collection. In: Magazine of the German Historical Museum . Issue 13, Volume 5. Berlin 1995. ( dhm.de )
  • Klaus-Peter Merta: From professional privilege to mass award. Orders of Merit and Medals ; In: Elisabeth Hackspiel-Mikosch: According to rank and status. German civil uniforms in the 19th century . German Textile Museum , Krefeld 2002, ISBN 3-00-009193-9 .
  • Jörg Nimmergut: German medals and decorations until 1945 . Central Office for Scientific Ordinance, Munich, ISBN 3-00-001396-2
    Volume 1: Anhalt - Hohenzollern . 1997
    Volume 2: Limburg - Reuss , 1997
    Volume 3: Saxony - Württemberg (1) , 1999
    Volume 4: Württemberg (2) - German Empire , 2001
    Volume 5: Addendum Anhalt - German Empire, Register , 2004.
  • Gerd Scharfenberg, Günter Thiede: Lexicon of Order Studies . Battenberg, Regenstauf 2010, ISBN 978-3-86646-051-5 .
  • Axel Attula: decorations for women. Evangelical women's pens in Northern Germany and their medals. Thomas Helms Verlag Schwerin 2011, ISBN 978-3-940207-21-0 .
  • Lucienne Hubler: Order. In: Historical Lexicon of Switzerland .
  • Christian Ortner , Georg Ludwigstorff: Austria's medals and decorations. Part I: The Imperial-Royal Orders until 1918 . Verlag Militaria , Vienna 2017, ISBN 978-3-902526-81-6

Historical literature

  • Christian Gryphius : Kurtzer Entwurff The Spiritual and Secular Knight Order . Fritsch, Leipzig 1697, 2nd edition: Bauch, Leipzig / Breslau 1709.
  • Maximilian Gritzner : Handbook of the knight and merit orders of all civilized states of the world within the XIX. Century . Autengruber, Leipzig 1998, ISBN 978-3-932543-42-5 . (Reprint of the 1893 edition.)
  • Ernst August Prinz zur Lippe: Orders and awards in the past and present . Keysersche Verlagbuchhandlung, Heidelberg / Munich 1958.
  • How do I wear my medals? Brochure, Berlin around 1925. ( digitized version )

Legal sources

Web links

Commons : Orders and Decorations  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Order of the Turkish Crescent . ( Memento from May 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  2. ↑ Order of the Half Moon . In: Kaspar Friedrich Gottschalck : Almanach der Ritter-Orden . Volume 2. Georg Joachim Goeschen, 1818, p. 161 f .; Text archive - Internet Archive .
  3. ↑ Ludwig Kuhn: Handbook of the history and constitution of all flourishing knight orders in Europe. Along with news of expired knight orders and medals of honor. Vienna 1811, p. 193 ff. Books.google.de
  4. ↑ Johann Georg Krünitz : Economic Encyclopedia, or general system of the land, house and state economy . 1817, p. 518 ff. Books.google.de
  5. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 60.
  6. ^ A b Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 15.
  7. ↑ a b c d e Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - Foreword at the German Historical Museum
  8. ↑ For the situation in Switzerland see: Adaptation of the legislation to the new federal constitution .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives ) Federal Department of Justice and Police. See the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of September 12, 1848 verassungen.de@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.ejpd.admin.ch
  9. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 15 f.
  10. ↑ Herbert Krüger: Allgemeine Staatslehre . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1966, pp. 570f. ( DNB 457304006 )
  11. ^ A b Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 16.
  12. ↑ Cf. Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , pp. 16, 80.
  13. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 16 f.
  14. ^ Hermann Alexander Schlögl: The Ancient Egypt: History and Culture from the Early Period to Cleopatra . CH Beck, 2006, ISBN 978-3-406-54988-5 , p. 183 f.
  15. ↑ Note. A detailed illustration of the chain with the flies on the website of Hermann and Anna Levinson .
  16. ↑ Hans-Hoyer von Prittwitz and Gaffron: Dona militaria. Crowned and highly decorated. In: Hans-Joachim Schalles , Susanne Willer (ed.): Marcus Caelius. Death in the Varus Battle. Landschaftsverband Rheinland / Rheinisches Landesmuseum and Primus Verlag, Xanten / Bonn / Darmstadt 2009, ISBN 978-3-89678-808-5 , pp. 80–84.
  17. ^ Václav Měřička: The Book of Orders and Awards . 2nd Edition. Verlag Werner Dausien, 1990, ISBN 3-7684-1680-1 , p. 20.
  18. ↑ Note Renate Müller-Wollermann differentiates between the “Gold of Commendation” (nbw n hzw.t) for services of any kind and the “Gold of Bravery” (nbw n qn.t) for military success. See Renate Müller-Wollermann: Offenses and punishments. To sanction deviant behavior in ancient Egypt . Brill 2004, ISBN 978-90-04-13906-0 , p. 251.
  19. ↑ Marcus Müller: The effects of war on ancient Egyptian society . In: Burkhard Meissner, Oliver Schmitt, Michael Sommer: War, Society, Institutions. Contributions to a comparative war history . Akademie Verlag, 2005, ISBN 978-3-05-004097-4 , pp. 97 ff.
  20. ↑ a b Jörg Nimmergut: Order of Europe . Battenberg, Regenstauf 2007, ISBN 978-3-86646-020-1 , p. 9.
  21. ↑ a b Jörg Nimmergut: Order of Europe . Battenberg, Regenstauf 2007, ISBN 978-3-86646-020-1 , p. 9 f.
  22. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 18 f.
  23. ↑ a b c d e Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - overview at the German Historical Museum
  24. ↑ a b Horst Fuhrmann: The Middle Ages are everywhere . Beck, Munich 2002, ISBN 978-3-406-47613-6 , p. 174 ff. Ders .: Pour le mérite. About making merit visible . Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1992, ISBN 3-7995-4159-4 , p. 9.
  25. ↑ Horst Fuhrmann: The Middle Ages are everywhere . Beck, Munich 2002, ISBN 978-3-406-47613-6 , pp. 177f .; That. Pour le mérite. About making merit visible . Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1992, ISBN 3-7995-4159-4 , p. 10 f.
  26. ↑ a b c d e f Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 19 f.
  27. ↑ a b c d Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - Knight Order
  28. ^ A b c d Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 20.
  29. ↑ a b c d Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - House order at the German Historical Museum
  30. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , pp. 20 and 22.
  31. ↑ a b c d e Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 21.
  32. ^ A b Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 21 f.
  33. ↑ See Horst Fuhrmann: Pour le mérite. About the visualization of merits; a historical reflection. Pp. 30–35 and 46 f.
  34. ^ Jörg Nimmergut: German medals and decorations until 1945. Central Office for Scientific Order Studies, Volume 2: Limburg - Reuss , pp. 780–790.
  35. ↑ a b c d e Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - Order of Merit
  36. ↑ Note. On March 10, 1759, Louis XV donated from France the French Military Order of Merit , which for the first time could also be awarded to officers of the Protestant faith.
  37. ↑ See Horst Fuhrmann: Pour le mérite. About the visualization of merits; a historical reflection. P. 30 f.
  38. ↑ Cf. Klaus-Peter Merta: From professional privilege to mass awards. Orders of Merit and Medals ; In: Elisabeth Hackspiel-Mikosch: According to rank and status: German civil uniforms in the 19th century . German Textile Museum, Krefeld 2002, ISBN 3-00-009193-9 .
  39. ↑ a b Werner Otto Hütte: The history of the Iron Cross and its significance for the Prussian and German labeling system from 1813 to the present . P. 8 ff.
  40. ↑ Note. The illustration shows the copy of Chiang Kai-shek from the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial in Taipei .
  41. ↑ a b c d Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - Legion of Honor
  42. ↑ German Historical Museum; Friedrich Max Kircheisen : Napoleon I. His life and time. Fifth volume 1799–1804, Georg Müller Verlag, Munich 1925, p. 272.
  43. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 22.
  44. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 22 f.
  45. ↑ a b c d e f Klaus-Peter Merta: Order - Decoration of Honor at the German Historical Museum
  46. ↑ a b c d e Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 23.
  47. ↑ Werner Otto Hütte: The history of the Iron Cross and its significance for the Prussian and German labeling system from 1813 to the present . Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn , 1967, DNB 482182385 , p. 36 f.
  48. ↑ Cf. Werner Otto Hütte: The history of the Iron Cross and its significance for the Prussian and German labeling system from 1813 to the present . Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn , 1967, DNB 482182385 , p. 27 f.
  49. ↑ Cf. Werner Otto Hütte: The history of the Iron Cross and its significance for the Prussian and German labeling system from 1813 to the present . Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn , 1967, DNB 482182385 , p. 98 ff.
  50. ^ A b Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 24.
  51. ^ A b c d Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 171 f.
  52. ↑ a b c Cf. Rudolf Absolon: The Wehrmacht in the Third Reich. January 30, 1933 to August 2, 1934 . Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1998, ISBN 3-486-41070-9 , p. 180.
  53. ↑ Horst Fuhrmann: Pour le mérite. About the visualization of merits; a historical reflection, p. 55.
  54. ^ Jörg Nimmergut : German medals and decorations until 1945 Volume IV. Württemberg II - German Empire . Central Office for Scientific Order Studies, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-00-001396-2 ; P. 1859.
  55. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 ; P. 119, p. 172, p. 175.
  56. ^ Jörg Nimmergut: German medals and decorations until 1945 Volume IV. Württemberg II - German Empire . Central Office for Scientific Order Studies, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-00-001396-2 ; P. 1865 ff.
  57. ^ Jörg Nimmergut: German orders and decorations until 1945 . Volume IV: Württemberg II - German Empire . Central Office for Scientific Order Studies, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-00-001396-2 ; Pp. 1869-1873.
  58. ↑ Wolfgang Steguweit: The "Eagle Shield of the German Empire" . In: Berlin monthly magazine ( Luisenstädtischer Bildungsverein ) . Issue 6, 2000, ISSN  0944-5560 , p. 182 ( luise-berlin.de ).
  59. ↑ a b c Jörg Nimmergut: German medals and decorations until 1945 . Volume IV: Württemberg II - German Empire . Central Office for Scientific Order Studies, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-00-001396-2 ; P. 1866.
  60. ^ Bernhard Zimmermann: The Office of the Federal President . Athenaeum Verlag, 1968, ISBN 978-3-7700-7020-6 , p. 66.
  61. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 ; P. 172, p. 176.
  62. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 ; P. 115 ff., P. 172 ff.
  63. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 24 f.
  64. ↑ Control Council Act No. 8: Elimination and Prohibition of Military Training (Online)
  65. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 25 f.
  66. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 26.
  67. ^ A b Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 27.
  68. ↑ see also: Hans Rothfels : Theodor Heuss, the question of the war orders and the peace class of the Pour le mérite . In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte , year 17, 1969, issue 4, pp. 414–422 ifz-muenchen.de (PDF; 6 MB)
  69. ^ Decree on the foundation of the "Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany" of September 7, 1951. (Online)
  70. ↑ Cf. Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 28 f.
  71. ^ Goethe to Moritz Daniel Oppenheim ; Goethe's Conversations. Edited by Woldemar Freiherr von Biedermann, Leipzig 1889–1896, Volume 6 (online)
  72. ^ Heinz Kirchner, Hermann-Wilhelm Thiemann, Birgit Laitenberger, Dorothea Bickenbach, Maria Bassier: German medals and decorations . 6th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-452-25954-4 , p. 17.
  73. ↑ Horst Fuhrmann: The Middle Ages are everywhere . Beck, Munich 2002, ISBN 978-3-406-47613-6 , p. 172; That. Pour le mérite. About making merit visible . Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1992, ISBN 3-7995-4159-4 , p. 7.
  74. ^ Society for Franconian History, Bavarian Academy of Sciences. Commission for Bavarian State History; Journal for Bavarian State History, Volume 41, Issues 2–3, Beck, 1978, SS 613.
  75. ↑ Werner Honig: The honor in the buttonhole. Orders and decorations through the ages . ISBN 3-404-60143-2 , p. 7.
  76. ↑ a b Quotations from Heinemann