Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Image is crowded

Image:Western empire verdun 843.png is crowded. A better map would be nice. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

beginning of the "Holy" part of the title

It would be useful to insert a date for the beginning of the 'Holy' part of the title. Sure not the Carolingians. Whose fault is it? Things to add for a better entry: the Electors; coronation by the popes, frequently in Milan; King of Germany; King of Rome; list of dynasties; anything else pressing? --MichaelTinkler

I think HRE came in with Otto in 962, but don't hold me to it. I have always heard that Otto's family were the Saxon dynasty, but the Imperial dynasty was the Ottonians...it's that Arnulfing/Pippinid/Carolingian thing. Aha -- Cantor (not entirely to be trusted because it's a gloss-everything-over textbook) Claims the HRE Started with Charlemagne but that C was crowned the first Western Roman Emperor (which makes me wonder what the Western Roman Emperors of the 4th and 5th centuries called themselves). Otto I was supposedly called king of the Romans. Otto II was first to use the title Emperor Augustus of the Romans -- no Holy. Just checked another source -- Otto I or II, Saxon OR Ottonian dynasty. JHK

  • sigh*. What ever got us interested in these people who couldn't even adopt clear entitulation? --MichaelTinkler

The "holy" appears in the title during the 11th century, during the Staufer dynasty. At that time there was a renewed interest in the old "Roman law" based on the Justinian Code. The Staufer emphasized that they were the Roman Emperors and that they had this dignity immediately from God and not via the Pope (which of course was factually incorrect). In the Roman/Byzantine documents the qualifier "holy" is frequently found in regard to anything connected with the Emperor. You have "holy bedroom", a "holy chamber" etc. It is funny that the term HRE has stuck with the Carolingian/Ottonian Empire and not with the Byzantine Empire that also used this epithet. That's probably because in the Eastern Empire there were a great many epithets so that the "holy" doesn't stick out in particular in contrast to the West where such titles were unusual.

As for the beginning of the HRE - it starts either with Charlemagne's coronation or with its renewal through Otto's coronoation.

Otto and his predecessors were titled either "King of the Franks" or just "King" until Henry IV (not yet crowned Emperor) adopted the title "King of the Romans" - he did this to counter Pope Gregory VII dubbing him "Rex Teutonicum". The latter title emphasizes the national character of his rule, while the former emphasizes a global character.

The first to call himself "Emperor of the Romans" was Otto II. His predecessors (starting with Charlemagne) had avoided the "of the Romans" part to avoid diplomatic conflict with the Eastern Empire who insisted on being the only Romans around.

Str1977 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's standard practice in Germany and Italy to give 962 as the starting date of the HRE. Why do some British and American historians like to think they know better? Norvo 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree that it's very strange the new, or better, the anglosaxon view about the origin of HRE, that they put in Charlemagne. The classical works of continental Europe put the emphasis on Otto I (and his father). It's curious that because of this Wikipedia had the articles based on the Charlemagne argument, but many of these articles have too arguments of the classical school, this can be chaotic! Personally i think that Carolingian empire is one and Ottonid empire another, aren't the same althought the first is the precedent of the second. I think we should direct the article in that manner and not like now, where Charlemagne-Carolingian empire is showed like an integral part of the HRE.

-Fco

End of the Middle Ages

What end of the Middle Ages? just wondering.JHK

Any of them, depending on exactly how weak you want the Emperor to get. ;)

Centralized

Out of curiosity, how is it unsupportable to claim that the HRE was one of the most centralized kingdoms in Europe? French kings had very little control outside of Paris, the east and north were still somewhat chaotic, but the Imperial government could make decrees and expect people would at least pretend to listen.

perhaps I should have said unsupported. The lack of clear succession, the shifting role of ministeriales, the endless Italian problem - all those sprang to my mind. The word 'centralized' has a definite implication for modern readers which has to be severely qualified to apply to any pre-modern organization, even including the Roman and Byzantine empires. (oh, and I hold no brief for the French - they were even worse, but that doesn't make the HRE a success!) --MichaelTinkler

Hence the qualifier most. I'll agree the HRE had great disparities among its parts, and was never a tight knit government. However, since it is so often presented as the shadow it became in the 1600s and 1700s, I think it is worth commenting that at one point it was doing as well as could be expected. Otherwise it would seem we are simply replacing exaggerated success by exaggerated failure, the same applying to the Romans, Byzantines, and others as well.

well, I suppose. I'm not a pessimist about much of anything else, but I find it hard to be enthusiastic about the success of government institutions in the middle ages. --MichaelTinkler

S.R.I./H.R.R.

Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) was often written in official documents in Latin language as Sacrum Romanum Imperium , abbr. S.R.I. or in German language H. R. R. ('Heilig Roemisch Reich').

Took this from the front page; can one of our historians extract the useful information and integrate it? --Stephen Gilbert

To my thinking, it needs to go. Also, I am absolutely not convinced of the whole first use of SRI thing. I would like to see the source and a confirmation that 1254 was the first instance. Everybody agrees that HRE started with the Ottonians (unless they try to take it back to Charlemagne). I have NEVER seen anything to indicate that the Ottonians styled themselves plain old emperors. This is VERY DUBIOUS...JHK

Slovenia

Slovenia should be added to the modern list of countries formerly found in the Holy Roman Empire. Slovene lands were added to the Empire in the 800's and remained in the Empire until dissolution in 1806.

major extension

I have done a major extension, but it's still just a first stab. It's only about major lines right now, and more dates are needed. Some comments are directly in the text. See also Talk:History of Germany for what I'm aiming for. -- djmutex 2003-04-30

... Deutscher Nation

Regarding the name, the variant ".. Deutscher Nation" is more common in German than the variant without it and commonly used in history books and papers; also cf.

I think it is unfair to classify this designation as a "user:H.J.ism", as it is still very much in modern use, not only by nationalists. --Eloquence 05:55 25 May 2003 (UTC)

user:H.J.-isms because it's her IP and she put that stuff in before. left a few curiosity (non- argument) questions on your talk page. JHK
It appears that user:H.J. has been unbanned. No idea when or why this happened, though. --Eloquence 06:05 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the "Deutscher Nation" suffix again. All the sources I could find confirm what is said in the section a little farther down that the suffix was only added later in the 15/16th century. Besides, the suffix shouldn't appear at the top where a translation of "Holy Roman Empire" is needed. Djmutex 16:59 27 May 2003 (UTC)

(sorry for my english...i am used to read, not write english)

The Name "Roman Empire" is used since the Ottonians and Salians; "Holy Roman Empire" is a term used by the Staufer (Frederick Barbarossa). But the official title of the emperor was: "[NAME] Dei gratia Romanorum imperator semper augustus" - "[Name] by the grace of God emperor of the Romans and always Augustus". In german, the word "Augustus" was translated as "Mehrer des Reiches" - approximately "Increaser of the Empire".

The title "Holy Roman empire of the German Nation" was used since the late 15. century, as the empire lost its old dominions in Italy and much of its supernational character. Before that, the emperors never called themself "German emperor" - they believed, they were the successors of the old Roman Empire ("Translatio Imperii" = the translation of the imperial crown by the coronation of Charlemagne (Karl der Große) and by the coronation of Otto the Great in 962).

I could post german refernce works. To example: H. Mitteis, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, Munich 1992. H. Thomas, Deutsche Geschichte des Spätmittelalters, Stuttgart 1983.

Or read the passages in the "New Cambridge Medieval History"


I've got a problem with the the in "of the German Nation". The German title doesn't have it (that would have to be "Heiliges Römisches Reich der Deutschen Nation), therefore the correct translation should be "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".

This changes the meaning of the title significantly: "of German Nation" is merely a description of the empire itself, while "of the German Nation" sounds like an existing German Nation owns the Empire. (At least to me, with German being my native language I may not get the meaning of the english translation entirely correct).

Therefore I'd like to change that, provided nobody objects. Nevfennas 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"German nation" is in the genitive; there's no way to translate it except as "of the German nation/people/community" or "of a German nation/people/community". "Of German nation" makes no sense in English - just looks like an article has been left out by mistake. Translating is not about rendering words into another language piece by piece. Besides, it doesn't sound like an existing German nation "owns" it, but rather that the Holy Roman Empire belonged to or was associated with the nation of German-speaking people of the time, which is exactly what the Latin and the German imply. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds like it was really a misinterpretation on my side. Thanks for the info Nevfennas 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
'... Deutscher Nation' was added in 1512-13 and refers specifically to the Central European parts of the HRE, that is, without the Italian parts. Norvo 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
that the german wiki doesnt use the...German Nation is not really a proove. The sa,me discussion is going on there. But nevertheless the name was changed in the 16th century. The last version should be used. We dont call Simbabwe still Rhodesia. The HRR is only used, incorrectly when you are too lazy to write the whole thing.--Tresckow 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

elected kings and Clovis

German kings had been elected since time immemorial. But Clovis passed his office to his son, and Charlemagne inherited his and passed on to his son. How is that? - Lev

Clovis wasn´t a german king. Germany developed from the collapsing Carolingian empire, but especially since the 12. century. And "germanic" and "german" isn´t the same...it would be the same, if historians would call all citizens of the USA "Indians".

Map

This article needs a map

I completely agree. If nobody else uploads one, I will have to take a blank map of Europe (say from the CIA World Factbook) and draw the lines myself... Assuming it's OK, legally speaking (is it?) ShrimpEr 14:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).
There are several maps in the German-language featured article de:Heiliges Römisches Reich that show different stages of the HRE, e.g. this one. The legends are in German, though. Gestumblindi 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

the map showing the hre teretory on actual borders is heavily inaccurate... most of silesia and pomerania is missing

True, the map The Holy Roman Empire around 1630 is historically not correct, because it does not show Pomerania and Silesia being part of the Holy Roman Empire then. There are other minor faults. The map is really not worth being reproduced here! --DaQuirin 13:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Territories

"Territories governed by a prince or duke, and in some cases kings. (Rulers of the Holy Roman Empire were not allowed to become a king within the Empire, but some had kingdoms outside the Empire, as was, for instance, the case in Great Britain, where the King was also the ruler of Hanover.) "

Wasn't the ruler of Bohemia (a territory, unlike Britain or Prussia, that was inside the empire) a king?

Bohemia was a special case, in that its position as part of the Empire was, iirc, somewhat unique. But yes. john k 06:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added that Bohemia was an exception.-Count Mippipopolous
Bohemia was indeed an exception, the capital city of the HRE was moved to Prague-Bohemia during 15th-17th century. Making it one of the most prominent parts of the HRE. And Holy Roman Emperor was also a king of Bohemia, see Rudolph II. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IEEE (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Hate it

I hate this article. I simply hate it. The introduction is not clear at all in explaining what the Holy Roman Empire is, even granting the relative vagueness of the term 'HRE'. It goes into a lot of detail about whatever, but an encyclopedic article should be rather clear and brief -- this article is neither (at least from what I could tolerably finish reading). (What the heck did I just read?) Nortexoid 05:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The HRE resembles nothing of the EU!

Except for its Christian character, the Empire may be thought of as anticipating the European Union of today.

I reccomend someone remove this passage, as although I could see some vague similarities in that they both united different ethinc groups, but if anything it provides more of a basis for a German State, not a United Europe.

Well, the concept of the HRE was harkening back to the "universal empire" feel of the Romans and Alexander III. Thing was, with the HRE they had a much more binding force behind them: religion. The whole of Europe was united under the banner of "christendom" occassionally, and the Empire sought to make that permanent and real. Trouble was, the other states around the Reich were fucking that up. Read The Habsburgs by Andrew Wheatcroft, it explains that when talking about the settings into which the Habsburg family came into power. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

A lot of this talk about religion (in practice, medieval Catholicism) is reminiscent of some post-1815 Roman Catholic 'throne and altar' reactionaries. The 'harking back' dates from then, not from much earlier. As for claims that the EU is some kind revival of the HRE, this is highly polemical British anti-EU propaganda. The EU includes many countries that were never part of the HRE, such as France, Spain, Portugal, Greeece, Poland, the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. As from 1 January 2007 Bulgaria and Romania will also be members. :) Norvo 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

first section

I was browsing this article and I found it distracting that the first sentence is interupted by list the name of the HRE in several different languages. Assuming that this information belongs in the article, could it be placed further down? I think the 1st para should give mainly the context and essential facts to orient the reader. I would normally be bold, but in this case I'd rather defer to those of you who have been refining this article. ike9898 19:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Voltaire quote

Can anyone verify that quote, "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" actually came from Voltaire? I've read elsewhere that it originated from a biography and unintentionally misattributed to Voltaire. Can anyone get back to me on that?

  • But I have heard that it comes from someone famous, and isn't just "a popular saying." (I think I learned this from Jeopardy about a year ago, and they're usually good with that sort of thing, altough not infalliable). I think the way it is now in the article is misleading, as it makes it seem like it was a common saying when it is in fact the quip of one individual. 129.105.104.223 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I was told in history class that Napoleon said it. Merick 17:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I feel like this is an actual Voltaire quote, but I'm not certain of that, and I can't point to any references. john k 03:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for the reference (and a full year later at that), The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations gives Voltaire's Essai sur le moeurs et l'esprit des nations, lxx. I guess that's reliable. -- Jao 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Original poster here, sorry I was thinking about another quote that was misattributed: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" which was from the friends of Voltaire.--Countakeshi 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rank

I have a question:

If a French baron was granted the title of Prince of HRE, does this mean that he anwsers to nobody except HRE Emperor ? Since the title of Prince of HRE is directly subject to HRE emperor.

Siyac 07:37, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He would answer to both; the dukes of Pfalz-Zweibrücken and Croÿ did.

Errorneous link

The link from here to the Battle of Verdun (Ist World War) is errorneous. Please correct (and then remove what I have just written here). The text is as follows:

"The Western Empire, as divided at Verdun, 843. From the 'Atlas to Freeman's Historical Geography', edited by J.B. Bury, Longmans Green and Co. Third Edition 1903." - the text under the picture. I am absolutely sure that you dind't want to link in the Ist World War here.

--Msoos 5 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Title conferral

Can a nobleman(Prince, Grand Duke, Duke, Marquess, Count, Viscount, Baron), besides HRE Emperor confer any noble title on a commoner ?

--Siyac 5 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

I don't think princes of the Holy Roman Empire were allowed to confer titles like that. After the break-up of the Empire, though, the German princes certainly did. I know that "Prince of Battenberg" was a title created by the Grand Duke of Hesse. john k 5 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Yeah they could. The Duke of Eisenach conferred noble titles onto Frederick Schiller, making him -von Schiller. It's in the Friedrich Schiller article. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 20:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

"SPAM"

I don't know what this trolly Ybbor person is trying to say (other than insult me), but I still think it makes sense to put the alleged Voltaire quote where I put it. 131.130.1.143 14:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


The Longest Lasting Empire?

Was the H.R.E. the longest lasting empire or was it Byzantium? If the H.R.E. was the longest lasting empire that should be added to the article.

the question is, was the HRE an empire, by any means but its name? (cf. the Voltaire quote) MartinBiely
There is no start to the "Byzantine" empire. It is just a continuum of the Roman Empire. -- Petri Krohn 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the HRE counts as an Empire. Voltaire's quote shows only that he couldn't look beyond the conditions of his time (The Byzantine Empire was hardly an Empire in its latter years).
The HRE ended in 1806 - the question is when it began: either 800 or 962. I'd prefer the latter year to avoid the gap. This would make 1006 or 844.
The Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 - the beginning is more difficult (753 BC or 31 BC or 285 AD or 326 AD or 395 AD or 613 AD) but - apart from the last date - it beats the HRE. Str1977 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire really starts in Justinian's reign, anyway. The style of rule kinda changes to something much more stronger and autocratic than the traditional roman way. To me, Byzantium began in 571, ending in 1453. The HRE truly began with Charelmagne, as he is counted as "Charles I" in the numbering of Emperors (if we went with the HRE beginning in merely 962, then Charles V would really be Charles IV). So, if not "the longest", then the HRE should be mentioned as "one of the longest". -Alex, 12.220.157.93 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

When did the practice of numbering the emperors start? In many countries kings weren't numbered till the 'high' Middle Ages, so counting Charlemagne as Charles I could be 13th century mythology, rather like the 'Holy Roman' propaganda. Norvo 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.