Robert-Tarek Fischer’s biography of German Emperor Wilhelm I is published at an important point in the development of scholarship on the Hohenzollern monarchy and current anniversaries of the German Empire’s founding. First, after decades of historiographical neglect, scholars have begun to reassess Wilhelm as a significant political actor in Prussian and German political culture from the accession of Friedrich Wilhelm IV in 1840 onwards. This has resulted in demonstrations of Wilhelm’s use of soft power as heir to the Prussian throne, his role in the decision-making process of the Prussian high command during the Franco-Prussian War, his use of symbolic politics, his role in Germany’s foreign policy and dealings with journalists.1 However, a scholarly biography which makes full use of the available sources and relates its findings to wider scholarship is still lacking. Secondly, Fischer’s biography is published amid the 150th anniversary of the Franco-Prussian War and the proclamation of the German Empire on 18 January. This commemoration has led to the publication of a range of popular and scholarly works, which concentrated mostly on the war or syntheses, but provided no discussion of individual actors.2 Thirdly, Fischer’s biography can supersede Guntram Schulze-Wegener’s 2015 study, which was marred by a national-conservative stance and no study of archival sources.3 Against this background, does Fischer succeed in providing the scholarly biography of Wilhelm the historical discipline needs?

According to the book’s cover, Fischer provides a biography „im Stil einer modernen, chronologisch strukturierten Biographie“. In the introduction, the author states that the book shows „Merkmale einer klassischen Biographie“, but at several points he goes „darüber hinaus und analysiert jene politischen Themenbereiche, denen Wilhelm I. seinen Stempel aufdrückte oder die er wesentlich mitgestaltete“ (p. 21.). Seen in this manner, the book’s subtitle is programmatic: out of 320 pages of text, two hundred pages discuss Wilhelm’s role as deputy to his brother, prince-regent, King of Prussia, and German Emperor. Fischer proceeds chronologically in five chapters, each of which are sub-divided in sections in which specific themes are discussed. This enables Fischer to discuss previously little-researched aspects of Wilhelm’s reign, such as his appointment of Bismarck as minister president, in which he rightfully questions the traditional narrative of Bismarck’s dominance in this fateful decision (p. 189–194). Fischer also details Wilhelm’s interest in Germany’s colonial initiatives, including his financing the Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft from his private funds (p. 309). Yet despite such insights, Fischer fails in providing the scholarly biography the historical discipline needs because of three recurrent problems.

First, Fischer does not define what a modern political biography constitutes, despite wanting to demonstrate what influence Wilhelm had on the course of Prussian and German history. This is problematic because Wilhelm operated in a complex bureaucratic state, constitutional confines and as figurehead of a fragmented polity. Consequently, Wilhelm’s influence was limited to personnel appointments, interventions in the legislative process and symbolic self-staging, but still difficult to qualify for its effect. Illustrative for this problem is the section on Wilhelm’s attitude towards the Jewish population, which Fischer irritatingly has titled “Wilhelm I. und die ‘Judenfrage’”. Fischer argues that what is important is what Wilhelm failed to do vis-à-vis the Jewish population, rather than actually did (p. 289). For example, Fischer states that Wilhelm promised the Jewish population full equal treatment in his speech from the throne in 1869 but does not detail how Wilhelm was involved in drafting the text or its popular resonance (p. 291–292). Fischer shows how Wilhelm responded hesitatingly to the antisemitic court preacher Adolf von Stoecker but was stopped from firing him through the intervention of prince Wilhelm (p. 294–301). Fischer concludes that Wilhelm’s public silence aggravated antisemitism, suggesting that a public statement could have halted those with anti-Jewish tendencies, but not stopping “eingefleischte Antisemiten” (p. 302). Such imprecise arguments do little to strengthen the case for Wilhelm’s political agency.

As these examples indicate, a second problem of the book is the absence of any systematic analysis. Instead, most claims are substantiated through anecdotic evidence. One of Fischer’s key assertions is that Wilhelm supported the militarization of Prussian and German society, without defining militarism as an analytical concept. Instead, Fischer lists a range of ceremonial events, such as the victory parade of 1871, the laying of the first stone of Berlin’s Siegessäule in 1873, of the Niederwald and its dedication in 1877 and 1883 respectively, and his support for the expansion of the army in 1874 (p. 281–289) as examples of Wilhelm’s militarism. But Fischer compares very different things: ceremonial events that were not just about celebrating the military and interventions in the legislative process. In one of the few instances when Fischer does make a comparison, he fails to do so systematically. He compares Wilhelm as military monarch favourably to other nineteenth-century emperors who led in wartime, including Napoleon I, Napoleon III, Franz Joseph I and Wilhelm II. But such a comparison should be made based on the nature of the conflict they were involved, the military prerogatives of their office and the professional institutions that supported their conduct in wartime, not merely because these monarchs were also an emperor.

Thirdly, Fischer does not fully engage with existent scholarship on the transformation of monarchical rule in the nineteenth century, nor has he made full use of the archival sources. The latter is important, because apart from editions of Wilhelm’s correspondence with his sister Charlotte, Empress of Russia, and brother King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, no modern edition of his writings exist, which is one explanation for the historiographical neglect of Wilhelm.4 To be sure: Fischer has consulted a range of archival sources, including of Austria’s Foreign Office, as well as from the Prussian cabinet, the Justice Department, Zivilkabinett, and Wilhelm’s personal archive. However, many of the chosen files are of secondary importance and key collections, such as the vast correspondence between Wilhelm and his wife, are not included. At the same time, Fischer mostly interprets Wilhelm in a national context, even though his conduct should be seen from a wider European perspective. For example, Fischer argues that Wilhelm’s determination to be a military monarch stems from dynastic precedent and military professionalism (p. 254). Overlooked here is that self-staging as a military monarch was a common strategy for nineteenth-century monarchs to sustain the legitimacy of their dynasty, especially in wartime and with the ascent of nation states, as Volker Sellin and Dieter Langewiesche have demonstrated.5

These problems prevent Fischer from historizing Wilhelm in a manner which scholarship requires; it also explains why whenever Fischer provides an assessment of Wilhelm as political actor, he reverts to conclusions of Wilhelm’s personal characteristics or temporal categories. Thus, when weighing Wilhelm as military monarch, Fischer argues that he stood for “Modernität und Traditionalismus, war Neuerer und Bewahrer zugleich”, who supported the ascent of the General Staff as the professional command centre, but preferred members of the aristocracy to constitute the officer corps (p. 260). Fischer is correct in his argument that Wilhelm achieved many of his goals in reign, such as strengthening Prussia’s position in Germany and Europe and stabilizing the monarchy’s position (p. 335). But underlining his positive characteristics, such as modesty and sense of duty, next to conservative tendencies such as defending governing by divine rule (p. 337) reduces Wilhelm’s conduct too much to his persona. It also fails to relate this to, respectively, attribution of specific characteristics to monarchs as part of political culture and the persistence of conservative notions of monarchical government in an emerging mass democracy. Therefore, although Fischer has provided a wide-ranging study, it is not the full scholarly biography of Wilhelm I which the historical discipline needs.

Notes:
1 Frederik Frank Sterkenburgh, Narrating prince Wilhelm of Prussia: commemorative biography as monarchical politics of memory, in: Frank Lorenz Müller / Heidi Mehrkens (eds.), Royal heirs and the uses of soft power in nineteenth-century Europe, London 2016, pp. 281–301; Frederik Frank Sterkenburgh, Revisiting the ‘Prussian triangle of leadership’: Wilhelm I and the military decision-making process of the Prussian high command during the Franco-Prussian War, 1870–1871, in: Martin Clauss / Christoph Nübel (eds.), Militärisches Entscheiden. Voraussetzungen, Prozesse und Repräsentationen einer sozialen Praxis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Frankfurt am Main 2020, pp. 453–478; Frederik Frank Sterkenburgh, Political agency through representation: Emperor William I as monarchical political actor, https://blog.sbb.berlin/political-agency-through-representation-emperor-william-i-as-monarchical-political-actor/, (03.12.2020); Jan Markert, Es ist nicht leicht, Kaiser unter Bismarck zu sein? Wilhelm I. und die Außenpolitik nach 1871, Friedrichsruh 2019; Jan Markert, Der Kaiser und die „Lügenpresse“. Vom problematischen Verhältnis eines Monarchen zum gedruckten Wort, https://www.bismarck-stiftung.de/2020/01/06/der-kaiser-und-die-luegenpresse-vom-problematischen-verhaeltnis-eines-monarchen-zum-gedruckten-wort/, (03.12.2020).
2 Tobias Arand, 1870/71. Die Geschichte des Deutsch-Französischen Krieges erzählt in Einzelschicksalen, Hamburg 2018; Klaus Jürgen Bremm, 70/71. Preußens Triumph über Preußen über das Kaiserreich Frankreich und die Folgen, Darmstadt 2019; Tillman Bendikowski, 1870/71. Der Mythos der deutschen Einheit, München 2020; Michael Epkenhans, Die Reichsgründung 1870–71, München 2020; Michael Epkenhans, Der Deutsch-Französische Krieg 1870/1871, Ditzingen 2020; Gerd Fesser, Sedan 1870. Ein unheilvoller Sieg, Paderborn 2019; Christoph Nonn, 12 Tage und ein halbes Jahrhundert. Eine Geschichte des deutschen Kaiserreiches, München 2020.
3 Guntram Schulze-Wegener, Wilhelm I. Deutscher Kaiser, König von Preußen, nationaler Mythos, Hamburg 2015. See also the review by Tobias Hirschmüller for H-Soz-Kult, 06.01.2017, https://www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/reb-24775 (03.12.2020).
4 Karl Heinz Börner (eds.), Prinz Wilhelm von Preußen an Charlotte. Briefe 1817–1860, Berlin 1993; Winfried Baumgart (eds.), König Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und Wilhelm I. Briefwechsel 1840–1858, Paderborn 2013.
5 Volker Sellin, Gewalt und Legitimität. Die europäische Monarchie im Zeitalter der Revolutionen, München 2011, pp. 105–143; Dieter Langewiesche, Die Monarchie im Jahrhundert Europas. Selbstbehauptung durch Wandel, Heidelberg 2013, pp. 8–12.