1. For the migrations during the eighteenth century, with special regard to southwest and west Germany, see Bennion, Lowell Colton, “Flight from the Reich: A Geographic Exposition of Southwest German Emigration 1683–1815” (Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 1971)Google Scholar; for the emigration in the nineteenth century, Walker, Mack, Germany and the Emigration, 1816–1885 (Cambridge, Mass., 1964)Google Scholar; for the German emigration from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, Fenske, Hans, “Die deutsche Auswanderung,”Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins der Pfalz 76 (1978): 183–220.Google Scholar

2. For the influence of the Thirty Years' War on Germany see Franz, Günther, Der Dreissigjährige Krieg und das deutsche Volk: Untersuchungen zur Bevölkerungs— und Agrargeschichte (Stuttgart, 1961).Google Scholar

3. For Becher's ideas see Hassinger, Herbert, Johann Joachim Becher 1635–1682: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Merkantilismus (Vienna, 1951), pp. 66ffGoogle Scholar; for the political testament of Frederick William I, 1722, see Die politischen Testamente der Hohenzollern, vol. 1, ed. Küntzel, Georg and Hass, Martin (Leipzig, 1911), p. 89Google Scholar; Krünitz, Johann Georg, Oeconomische Encylopädie oder allgemeines System der Land-, Haus- und Staatswirtschaft, 4 (Berlin. 1774): 359–76 (s.v. “Bevölkerung”)Google Scholar; similarly, von Justi, J. H. G., Staatswirtschaft (Vienna, 1755), 135ffGoogle Scholar., said that a country could not have too many inhabitants, if commerce and industry were flourishing. Cf. generally Frohneberg, Erich, Bevölkerungslehre und Bevölkemngspolitik des Merkantilismus (Gelnhausen, 1930).Google Scholar

4. Exact figures cannot be given. The Austrian and Bohemian exiles formed the biggest group. In the literature their numbers are estimated at 40,000 and 150,000, respectively; cf. Franz, Dreissigjähriger Krieg, pp. 72f. The immigration from Switzerland may have reached about 50,000. For total emigration from the Swiss confederacy, authors estimate 50,000 during the seventeenth century; cf. for example Bickel, W., Bevölkerungsgeschichte der Schweiz seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (Zurich, 1947), p. 99.Google ScholarMacco, Hermann Friedrich, “Über die Einwanderung nach Deutschland, insbesondere in die Pfalz (1650–1800),” Jahrbuch jür auslandsdeutsche Sippenkunde (Stuttgart, 1936), p. 125Google Scholar, mentions lists with about 30,000 names which he had collected. The influx of Huguenots, including Walloons and Waldenses, is numbered at 43,000, half of whom came to Brandenburg; cf. Beuleke, Wilhelm, Die Hugenotten in Niedersachen (Hildesheim, 1960), pp. 16f.Google Scholar But the number may have been higher. After 1685 between 200,000 and 500,000 Huguenots left France; cf. Scoville, Warren C., The Persecution of Huguenots and French Economic Development 1680–1720 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1960), pp. 118ff.Google Scholar (200,000), and Galling, K. in the encyclopedia Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., vol. 3 (1959), cols. 470–74 (500,000).Google Scholar The number of countries open to them was small: the Reformed cantons of Switzerland, the Reformed territories of Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain, especially Scotland, and the British colonies in North America. Erbe, Helmut, Die Huge-notten in Deutschland (Essen, 1937), pp. 21–23Google Scholar, thinks that 500,000 Huguenots left France, and that 25,000 of them went to Switzerland, 100,000 to the Netherlands, 80,000 to Great Britain, 15,000 to North America, and 30,000 to Germany. He does not explain where the other 250,000 went. Exact figures for small groups of immigrating Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Italians, and Swedes cannot be given. For the Bohemian immigration to Saxony see Blaschke, Karlheinz, Bevölkerungsgeschichte von Sachsen bis zur industriellen Revolution (Weimar, 1967), p. 113 (80,000)Google Scholar; in general see Winter, Eduard, Die tschechische und slowakische Emigration in Deutschland im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1955).Google Scholar For the immigration of Italians see Augel, Johannes, Italienische Einwanderung und Wirtschaftstätig-keit in rheinischen Städten des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1971).Google Scholar

5. Cf. in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., s.v. “Salzburger,” vol. 5 (1961), cols. 1348f.Google Scholar, and s.v. “Schaitberger,” col. 1382; s.v. “Deferegger und Dümberger,” vol. 2 (1958), cols. 398f.Google Scholar; Mayr, Josef Karl, “Die Emigration der Salzburger Protestanten von 1731/32,” Korrespondenzblatt des Gesamtvereins der deutschen Geschichts- und Aktertumsvereine, vol. 77 (1929), cols. 98–107Google Scholar; and Kerschhofer, Otto, Die Salzburger Emigration nach Preussisch-Litauen: Ereignisse, Einflüsse und Auswirkungen der Vertreibung von 1731/32 (Ph.D. diss., Vienna, 1972).Google Scholar

6. Among these were about 15,000 Salzburgers; about 1,000 Lithuanians; at least 26,000 former inhabitants of Poland, especially Germans from Poland; at least 22,000 Austrians, especially Czechs and Germans from Bohemia; and at least 2,000 other Europeans. The number of Salzburgers comes from Schumacher, Bruno, Geschichte Ost- und Westpreussens, 4th ed. (Würzburg, 1959), p. 206Google Scholar; the number of immigrants to Prussia from countries outside Germany may be estimated from the information in Beheim-Schwarzbach, Max, Hohenzollernsche Colonisationen: Ein Beitrag zu der Geschichte despreussischen Staates und der Colonisation des östlichen Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1874), pp. 544ff.Google ScholarStahl, Friedrich, “Die Einwanderung in ostpreussische Städte 1740–1806,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 1 (1952): 544–53Google Scholar, shows that out of 3,354 immigrants to the towns of East Prussia 944 (28.1%) came from countries beyond the German frontiers.

7. Cf. Knittle, Walter Allen, Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration (Philadelphia, 1937).Google Scholar Of the numerous emigrants who had gathered at Rotterdam a little more than 13,000 were brought to England. Between 1709 and March 1711 3,775 Catholics were sent back to the continent. While 250 families remained in England, between August and October 1709 a little more than 3,000 persons were taken to the Irish county Limerick; only 1,000 stayed there for good, however. Between December 1709 and April 1710 2,814 persons were transported to New York; 446 of them died during the voyage and after the arrival in New York; 650 came to Carolina; 500 settlers in the Bahamas in 1717 may also have belonged to this stream of emigrants. Further emigrants came to England at their own expense. The death rate among all the emigrants who came to England reached at least 20%. How many left their home and did not survive the journey to Rotterdam or the stay there cannot be estimated.

8. In June 1712 Count Alexander Karolyi wrote to his wife from Pressburg, where he was attending the Hungarian diet: “Mehr als 14,000 strömen nach Ungarn herunter.” Some time later he mentioned as many as 80,000, of whom he recruited 1,500, at 50 Kreuzer per person, for his possessions in Sathmar. Cf. Wieser, Stefan, “Wir zogen aus Schwaben nach Osten,” in Schmied, Stefan, ed., Heimatbuch der Sathmarer Schwaben (Wangen, 1952), pp. 5–9, esp. p. 5.Google Scholar See also Holder, Gottlob, “Schicksale schwäbischer Ungarnfahrer im Jahre 1712,” Deutsch-Ungarische Heimatblätter 2 (1930): 136–43.Google Scholar Holder mentions that observers at Ulm estimated the volume of the emigration to Hungary at 50,000. The migrants to Hungary were following an announcement by the emperor, given to the Catholic estates of the Swabian Circle, concerning the possibilities for settlement in Hungary. See also Schmidlin, W., “Schwäbische Auswanderer auf der Donau 1712,” Ulmische Blätter 3 (1927): 76f., 84f., 92f.Google Scholar

9. The wave of migrants to America from 1709 on could have been caused by the pamphlet of Kocherthal, Josua, Ausführlich und umständlicher Bericht von der berühmten Landschaft Carolina, 4th ed. (1709)Google Scholar; cf. Schuchmann, Heinz, “Der 1708 nach Amerika ausgewanderte Pfarrer Josua Kocherthal hiess ursprünglich Josua Harsch,” Mitteilungen zur Wanderungsgeschichte der Pfälzer, 1967, pp. 121–28Google Scholar; Ehmer, Hermann, “Die Auswanderung aus Südwestdeutschland nach Nordamerika,” in USA und Baden-Württemberg in ihren geschichtlichen Beziehungen (Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 41–49, esp. p. 41Google Scholar; Raum, Otto F., “Die Hintergründe der Pfälzer Auswanderung im Jahre 1709,” Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und Volksforschung 3 (1939): 551–67, esp. 560f.Google Scholar For the propaganda for Hungary see G. Holder, cited in n. 8.

10. The importance of the propaganda for the beginning of the emigration is underscored in my essay cited above, n. 1; Bennion comes to the same conclusion. Lotz, Friedrich, “Die frühtheresianische Kolonisation des Banates (1740–1762),” in Gedenkschrift für Harold Steinacker (Munich, 1966), pp. 146–81Google Scholar, writes (p. 153) that the activity of the agents “war geradezu ausschlaggebend. Ohne ihre Werbetätigkeit wäre die ganze Südostkolonisation einfach unmöglich gewesen.”

11. See for example Vàrkonyi, A. R., “Repopulation and the System of Cultivation in Hungary after the Expulsion of the Turks,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16 (Budapest, 1970): 151–70.Google Scholar For the Bačka see Lotz, Friedrich, “Die ersten deutschen Kolonisten der Batschka,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 3 (1960): 169–76.Google Scholar Rumanian authors emphasize that the Banat was not at all a sparsely populated region; cf. Tinta, Aurel, Colonizarile Habsburgice in Banat 1716–1740 (Timişoara, 1972)Google Scholar, quoted by Lackner, Felix, “Rumänische und deutsche Siedlungsbewegungen im Banat, ihre Beziehungen und gegenseitige Bedingtheit,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 17/18 (1974–1975): 74–84Google Scholar, and by Seewann, Gerhard, “Zur Familiengeschichte der Grafen Mercy und Mercy-Argenteau,” Südost deutsches Archiv 19/20 (1976–1977): 53–59, esp. p. 57.Google Scholar Lackner, p. 79, estimates the population of the Pashalic of Temeswar (Timişoara) just before the Habsburg conquest at 57,000 families; 85,000 persons, as a minimum, are usually given as the population of the Banat in 1717. Tinta and, following him, Lackner surely overestimate the extent of cultivation of the region at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The non-Rumanian literature usually follows Griselini, Francesco, Versuch einer politischen und natürlichen Geschichte des Temeswarer Banats, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1780).Google Scholar

12. The first Habsburg Impopulationspatent (Aug. 8, 1689) has been printed by Tafferner, Anton, Quellenbuch zur donau-schwäbischen Geschichte (Munich, 1974), pp. 53–55.Google Scholar In the same collection there are some edicts forbidding emigration. For the historical development of German emigration law see Tetzlaff, Harald Wilhelm, “Das deutsche Auswanderungswesen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Übervölkerung Deutschlands in staats- und völkerrechtlicher Sicht” (juridical diss., Göttingen, 1953), pp. 67ffGoogle Scholar; Neu, Heinrich, “Die rheinische Auswanderung nach Amerika bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 144/45 (1946–1947): 103–40Google Scholar; von Ham, Hermann, “Die Stellung des Staates und der Regierungsbehörden im Rheinland zum Auswanderungsproblem im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert,” Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und Volksforschung 6 (1942): 261–309, esp. 270ffGoogle Scholar; Schünzel, Eva, “Die deutsche Auswanderung nach Nordamerika im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert” (Ph.D. diss., Würzburg, 1959), pp. 203ff.Google Scholar

13. See Henning, Friedrich Wilhelm, Dienste und Abgaben der Bauern im iS. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1969), esp. pp. 99f.Google ScholarHenn, Volker, “Zur Lage der rheinischen Landwirtschaft im 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift fur Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 21 (1973): 173–88.Google Scholar

14. Keyser, Erich, Bevölkerungsgeschichte Deutschlands, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1941), p. 363Google Scholar, gives for Prussia in 1700 16.4 inhabitants per square kilometer, and for Hanover 24.4; for Württemberg, however, 40.6. According to Schmoller, Gustav, Die preussische Kolonisation des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1886)Google Scholar, in 1680–1700 East Prussia had 13.4 inhabitants per square kilometer, the Neumark 11.3, Pomerania 9.4, and the Kurmark 13.8; on the other hand Saxony had 45.2, Hanover 30.6, Württemberg 50.9, Schleswig-Holstein 27.5.

15. See the titles mentioned above, n. 12. A typical edict is that of Birkenfeld in 1774. There we read: “Es soil nicht erlaubt sein, auszuwandern, es sei denn, dass die Person als unverbesserlicher Müssiggänger oder übler Wirtschafter befunden werde.” Quoted by Mörsdorff, Robert, Die Ausutandenmg aus dem Birkenfelder Land (Bonn, 1939), p. 8.Google Scholar (This interdiction was published in spite of a population which had increased by 384% between 1669 and 1772.) In Fürstenberg, on May 14, 1770, we find: “Betreffend … die Verheiratete und mit Kindern überladene gar arme Familien, welche sich zu ernähren gänzlich ausser Stande sind und dem Publico nur zur Last fallen” emigration shall be allowed. Quoted by Hienerwadel, Otto, “Der Anteil der Baar am Schwabenzug nach Ungarn,” Deutsch-Ungarische Heimatblätter 3 (1931): 285.Google Scholar Among the German princes only Frederick Charles of Baden, under the influence of physiocratic ideas, refused to forbid emigration. See Windelband, Wolfgang, Die Venvaltung der Markgrafschaft Baden zur Zeit Karl Friedrichs (Leipzig, 1917), p. 109.Google Scholar

16. See the lists of Strasburger, R. B., Pennsylvania German Pioneers: A Publication of the Original List of Arrivals in the Port of Philadelphia from 1727–1808, ed. Hinke, W. J. (Norristown, Pa., 1934).Google Scholar

17. It can be concluded from Wilhelm, Franz and Kallbrunner, Josef, eds., Quellen zur deutschen Siedlungsgeschichte in Südosteuropa …: Mit einer statistischen Tabelle und einer Karte (Munich, 1936)Google Scholar, that at least 116,000 persons were settled in Hungary, Transylvania, and Galicia between 1748 and 1786 and in 1802–3, reckoning the average family size at 4.35. The lists are reasonably complete only from 1763. The origin of 94,553 person; can be determined; of these, 85.2% came from Germany, 14.8% from other European countries. The origins of the Germans was as follows: Of these 80,519 Germans, 4,535 came from north and central Germany. This distribution resulted from the fact that Vienna only wanted Catholics (only Joseph II accepted Protestants too); since north Germany was predominantly Protestant, it was not interesting as an area for recruiting state settlers.

18. The specifics about the origins of the settlers are given by Beheim-Schwarzbach, op. cit.

19. During the seventeenth century there was a wave of migrants from Silesia to Poland comprehending about 30,000 individuals. This was the greatest stream of German emigrants during this century; see Kuhn, Walter, Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung in der Neuzeit, 2 (Cologne and Graz, 1955): 172.Google Scholar This immigration decreased in the eighteenth century but still continued. Clothmakers and craftsmen in particular came to Poland; see Breyer, Albert, Die Tuchmachereinuwanderung in den ostmitteleuropäischen Raum vom 1550–1830 (Leipzig, 1941).Google Scholar There was also a small agrarian immigration. For the Polish interest in attracting German settlers to compensate for the losses caused by the Swedish wars see Müller, August, Die preussische Kolonisation in Nordpolen und Litauen (1795–1807) (Berlin, 18 1928), pp. 28f.Google Scholar, and Breyer, Albert, “Deutsche Gaue in Mittelpolen,” Deutsche Monatshefte in Polen 1 (1934–1935): 393–434.Google Scholar For the Prussian colonization in the provinces New East Prussia and South Prussia see the book of August Müller. By 1806 this activity had brought to the two provinces 15,845 immigrants. Except for the state colonization, all these movements were a part of the Stammesvorlandsiedlung—that is to say, the settlers came from neighboring territories—and even among the state settlers in South Prussia and New East Prussia immigrants from the neighboring Prussian provinces played an important role. For the term Stammesvorlandsiedlung see Lendl, Egon, “Die neuzeitliche deutsche Ostsiedlung: Ein Aufriss,” Deutsche Monatshefte in Polen 3 (1936–1937): 1–7.Google Scholar A summary is given by Kuhn, Walter, “Das Deutschtum in Polen,” Osteuropa-Handbuch, vol. 2: Polen, ed. Markert, Werner (Cologne and Graz, 1959), pp. 138–64.Google Scholar

20. The individuals dismissed from bondage had to pay a special tax, the Manumissionsgebühr. Then they received a special passport, the Manumissionsschein, which allowed them to go to another country, but not to stay in their homeland. All persons dismissed were registered by the authorities. These registers can be evaluated by modern historians such as Werner Hacker, who has given a systematic evaluation of the southwest German archives in his books Auswanderungen aus dem früheren Hochstift Speyer nach Südosteuropa und Übersee im XVIII. Jahrhundert (Kaiserslautern, 1969)Google Scholar, Auswanderer vom Oberen Neckar nach Südosteuropa im 18. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1970)Google Scholar, Auswanderung aus dem Raum der späteren Hohenzollernschen Lande nach Südosteuropa im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Sigmaringen, 1969)Google Scholar, Auswanderungen aus dem nöordlichen Bodenseeraum im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, archivalisch dokumentiert (Singen, 1975)Google Scholar, Auswanderungen aus dem südostlichen Schwarzwald zwischen Hochrhein, Baar und Kinzig, insbesondere nach Südosteuropa (Munich, 1975)Google Scholar, and Auswanderung aus Oberschwaben im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, archivalisch dokumentiert (Stuttgart, 1977).Google Scholar His lists include about 25,000 names; cf. also the survey in his essay “Die Auswanderung nach Südosteuropa im 18. Jahrhundert,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 14 (1971): 122–43.Google Scholar

21. At the beginning of the scholarly discussion of these problems Beheim-Schwarz-bach estimated the number at about 200,000 rural and 110,000 urban colonists. Gustav Schmoller, op. cit., gave numbers a bit smaller. Froese, Udo, Das Kolonisationswerk Friedrichs des Grossen: Wesen und Vermāchtnis (Heidelberg, 1938), pp. 52ff.Google Scholar, stated that the number of settlements was greater than estimated by Beheim-Schwarzbach; instead of the 900 settlements named by the latter, he could identify 1,340. He still thought the total num ber of settlers given by Beheim-Schwarzbach was correct, although adding up the number of settlers in the diverse colonies would produce other results (Froese himself gave no summation). On this point Walter Kuhn accepted only a figure of 90,000 to 100,000 rural colonists in the regions east of the Elbe, : “Das osterreichische Siedlungswerk des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 6 (1963): 1–26, esp. 17fGoogle Scholar; idem, “Die preussische Kolonisation unter Friedrich dem Grossen,” in Deutsche Ostsiedlung in Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Cologne and Vienna, 1971), pp. 182–96, esp. p. 193.Google Scholar However, Walter Hubatsch, after having reviewed the literature, thought there were at least 250,000 rural settlers in all the Prussian provinces: Friedrich der Grosse und die preussische Verwaltung (Cologne, 1973), pp. 99ff., esp. p. 108.Google Scholar Including the urban settlers we thus must calculate about 350,000 colonists; at least 50,000 of them came from other European countries, while the mass came from German territories outside Prussia. This figure, which includes the persons, excluded by Kuhn, settled by private landowners and corporations, seems to have the greatest plausibility. Thus, in the period we are covering, public and private settle ments from the Great Elector to Frederick William III brought approximately 430,000 individuals to Prussia; 100,000 of them came from outside the German frontiers. Prussia, which had about 2.5 million inhabitants at the beginning of the reign of Frederick the Great and—in spite of the very bloody Seven Years' War—about 4.8 million at the end of this era, was a land of immigration to a very high degree.

22. This conclusion must be drawn from the fact that most of the persons whom Hacker lists as manumitted by their authorities do not appear in the lists of transportation given by Wilhelm, and Kallbrunner, . Schneider, Ludwig, Das Kolonisationswerk Josefs II. in Galizien (Leipzig, 1939), p. 30Google Scholar, argues that in Galicia, where the colonization took place only on Habsburg domains, only a third of the settlers are listed by Wilhelm and Kallbrunner.

23. See for example Mönckmeier, Wilhelm, Die deutsche überseeische Auswanderung (Jena, 1912), p. 13Google Scholar; Bennion, op. cit., p. 166. The older figures are very insufficient. For example, Löher, Franz, Geschichte und Zustände der Deutschen in Amerika, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1855)Google Scholar, writes (p. 76) that in 1759 22,000 persons from Württemberg, Baden, and the Palatinate came to Philadelphia; for 1757 6,000 Württembergers are mentioned; cf. Smolka, Georg, “Deutsche Auswanderung: Ein Überblick,” in von Freeden, Hermann and Smolka, Georg, eds., Auswanderer (Leipzig, 1937), pp. 9ff., esp. pp. 15f.Google Scholar The lists given by Strasburger show that the great wave of immigrants ended in 1754. In 1756 only no passengers registered at Philadelphia, and for the years 1757–60 no figures are available. It is known that 68 Amter in Württemberg had an outflow of 4,049 persons before 1749. An exodus of 6,000 persons during one year would have left traces in the documents, but nothing is known about it. See Miller, Max, “Ursachen und Ziele der schwäbischen Auswanderung,” Württembergische Vierteljahrshefte für Landesgeschichte 42 (1936): 184–218, esp. 187.Google Scholar

24. According to the evaluation of 1931, the share of Germans and their descendants among the white population of the United States in 1790 was 8.7%,277,000 persons. We must take into account the well-known fertility of the German immigrants; see, for example, Mittelberger's, GottliebReise nach Pennsylvania im Jahre 1750 (Stuttgart, 1756)Google Scholar: when we enter a house we will usually find it “voller Kinder, und in der Stadt Philadel phia wimmelt's voll derselben” (p. 97). The number of immigrants, therefore, must have been much lower. Finally, about 51% of all people of German origin lived in Pennsyl vania, but more than half arrived there; many went to other colonies. Unfortunately we have useful data for Philadelphia only for the years 1727–75. The influx for the years up to 1726 and from 1776 to 1785 in Philadelphia, and the arrivals at other ports, must be estimated. Leaving out the Swiss, an estimate of 115,000 seems to be acceptable. Canada received about 6,000 Germans, Louisiana about 2,000 from 1717 to 1720, and Guyana about 1,000 from 1763 to 1765. The colonies of the Netherlands may also have attracted about 1,000. See Lehmann, Heinz, Zur Geschichte des Deutschtums in Kanada, vol. 1 (Stuttgart, 1931)Google Scholar; Kloss, Heinz, ed., De Goede Hoop (Weimar, 1937), esp. p. 184Google Scholar; Schwägerl, Anton, Das Auslandsdeutschtum im niederländischen Kolonialbereich unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der geographischen und sozialen Verhältnisse (Weimar, 1937).Google Scholar

25. Until now nobody has tried to estimate the immigration to Hungary. Tafferner, Anton, Die deutsche Ostsiedlung der Neuzeit und die Donauschwaben im pannonischen Becken (Frejlassing, 1956), p. 6Google Scholar, estimates without giving his reasons that during the period of settlement from 1686 to 1829 about 150,000 German immigrants came to Hungary. There can be no doubt that this number is too small. For the settlements during the reign of Charles IV (1711–40) alone Kuhn, Siedlungswerk, p. 5, estimates 60,000 newcomers from Germany. He gives no figures for the reigns of Leopold I (who ruled till 1705) and his son Joseph I (1705–11), but the number of immigrants during the 1690s should not be underestimated. We have to assume high figures for 1712. Counting the immigrants in the first years of the reign of Maria Theresa as well, the figure of 100,000 seems realistic.

26. For the lowest estimate of the number of settlers on state land, see above, n. 17. The estimate of the private immigrants is based on a relation of three private immigrants to one settler recruited by the government. For the reign of Francis II, Kuhn, Siedlungswerk, p. 13, estimates as a maximum 5,000 of the latter.

27. For the first years of the colonization we must assume an average death rate of 15% per annum. In 1733 alone 20% of the inhabitants of Werschetz, “Weisskirchen, and NeuPalanka died of marsh-fever. Five years after their arrival in Billed (1766), half of 1,000 settlers were dead. In Niczkydorf, in 1785 alone, 40% of the inhabitants died. See Valentin, Anton, Die Banater Schwaben: Kurzgefasste Geschichte einer südostdeutschen Volksgruppe (Munich, 1959), pp. 62ff.Google Scholar An official report dealing only with parts of the Banat tells us that in 1730 2, 531 householders (10% of the total) and 673 married sons of householders died; 546 householders fled: Kallbrunner, Josef, “Vor 200 Jahren,” Deutsch-Ungarische Heimatblätter 4 (1932): 59f.Google Scholar The officials openly took into account the death and the flight of settlers. In 1786, when the crowd of immigrants could not be housed—the housing of 1,325 families which had akeady arrived had to be postponed until 1787, and that of 108 families even until 1788—the official report said: “Da sicher zu vermuten ist, dass von diesen 108 Familien noch viele aussterben oder entweichen, so lässt sich dieser Antrag nicht eher als bis Ende des Jahres 1787 bestimmen.” Quoted by Schwikker, Johann Heinrich, Die Deutschen in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen (Vienna, 1881), p. 344.Google Scholar Between 1712 and 1716 Count Károlyi settled 1,400 Germans on his estates; 200 of them (14.3%) died, and 950 (67.9%) left; see Stefan Schmied, op. cit.

28. Weidlein, Johann, Deutsche Kulturleistungen in Ungarn seit dem 18.Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1963), p. 8Google Scholar, writes that in 1930 every fourth Hungarian (within the boundaries of the Treaty of Trianon) had a German surname. Especially in the towns, the Germans soon assimilated themselves to the Hungarians. Those who wanted to improve their social position had to attend Latin or Hungarian schools. For the problems of assimilation see von Gogalák, Ludwig, “Zum Problem der Assimilation in Ungarn in der Zeit von 1790–1918,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 9 (1966): 1–44.Google Scholar About 1830 the urban Germans were still dominant; see, e.g., von Szaplowica, Johann, Gemälde von Ungarn, 1 (Pest, 1829): 177Google Scholar, writing about Ofen and Pest: “Das Volk spricht meistens deutsch, und jeder Fremde wird sich wundem, in der grössten Stadt des Reiches, in Handel und Wandel, in Kaffee- und Wirtshäusern, im Theater und an allen öffentlichen Unterhaltungsortern, so wie in dem grössten Teile der Bürgerhäuser die deutsche Sprache zu hören.” Quoted by Adriany, Gabriel, “Der deutsche Beitrag zur Kultur Ungams im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Kaiser, Friedhelm Berthold and Stasiewski, Bernhard, eds., Deutsche im europäischen Osten: Verständnis und Missverständnis (Cologne and Vienna, 1976), pp. 93–109, esp. pp. 94f.Google Scholar Adriány estimates for 1840 that of 11,200,000 inhabitants of the kingdom 1,200,000 (10.7%) were Germans. If we take into consideration the losses through assimilation, the number of Germans descended from the medieval immigrants to the parts of Hungary which had never been Turkish, and the high death rate among the immigrants, we must estimate that an influx of between 300,000 and 500,000 Germans would have been necessary to create the German minority of 1,200,000 to 1,400,000. See also Szabó, Stefan, Ungarisches Volk (Budapest, 1944), pp. 131ff.Google Scholar

29. See Stump, Karl, Die Auswanderung aus Deutschland nach Russland in den jahren 1763 bis 1862 (Tübingen, 1972)Google Scholar, and idem, “Das Deutschtum in Russland bzw. der Sowjet-union,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 14 (1971): 155–72.Google Scholar For the literature concerning Poland see above, n. 21, and Kuhn, Walter, Die jungen deutschen Sprachinseln in Galizien (Münster, 1930).Google Scholar For Spain, see Weiss, Josef, Die deutsche Kolonie in der Sierra Morena (Cologne, 1907).Google Scholar For Denmark see Fauth, Hermann, “‘Pfälzer’ in Jütland,” Pfälzisches Museum 46 (1929): 155–61.Google Scholar

30. See Massing, Gerhard, “Riga und due Ostwanderung des deutschen Handwerkers: Studien zur deutschen Handwerkerwanderung im 18. Jahrhundert,” Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und Volksforschung 3 (1939): 334–49Google Scholar; 93% of the craftsmen mentioned here stemmed from north and central Germany.

31. Slemeyer, Hans, “Die Hollandgängerei im Lichte der Frerener Kirchenregister,” Jahrbuch des Emsländischen Heimatvereins 16 (1969): 174–81, esp. 175Google Scholar; Tack, Johannes, Die Entstehung des Hollandganges in Hannover und Oldenburg: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Arbeiterwanderung (Ph.D. diss., Leipzig, 1901).Google Scholar

32. See Schelbert, Leo, Einführung in die schweizerische Auswanderungsgeschichte der Neuzeit (Zurich, 1976), pp. 200ff.Google Scholar