Talk:Habsburg monarchy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of the empire[edit]

Would benefit the article. Ksenon 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I see the text "susan kroh was a very important asset to austria's devolepment" at the beginning of this article's text, but when I try to delete it, it does not appear in the edit box. Can someone fix it? Juro 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on Template:History of Austria. I've removed it. john k 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to Fix and Complete Articles[edit]

As an Native Austrian and History Student I tried to complete and correct the Habsburg Monarchy article by adding facts and doing some detail corrections, by using Material and Sources here from Austria. If my work can help to make Wikipedia better and to provide its users correct Informations, I´m very happy to do so.

Yours Xandl Hofer November 6th 2008 (23:08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.101.62 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg Monarchy → Habsburg Hereditary Lands – As the Habsburg possessions never really formed a single entity, (unlike the Austrian Empire) as the name "Habsburg Monarchy" suggests, (like the "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy"). Rather the lands were simply a loose collection of different territories inherited by the members of the House of Habsburg. With only limited centralisation. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and "... lands" implies the lands under the "Monarchy", not the monarchy itself. —Sowlos  06:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with Sowlos. Moreover, Hungary was part of the Habsburg Monarchy, but it was not among the hereditary lands (unlike, for example, Bohemia after 1620). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with the previous editors' comments.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with the previous editors' comments. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is clearly the common name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggestion acctually is a rather common name for this too and I agree with Trajan 117. Cecil Huber (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only Hungary had special status in Habsburg era. Other lands were just provinces of the Emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolondcaesar (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appellation?[edit]

I do not understand the use of the word "appellation" in the lead paragraph:

"The Habsburg Monarchy (or Habsburg Empire) is an unofficial appellation amongst historians for the countries and provinces which were ruled by the junior Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg (1278–1780),"

The link provided is extremely unhelpful:

"An appellation is a legally defined and protected geographical indication used to identify where the grapes for a wine were grown; other types of food often have appellations as well. Restrictions other than geographical boundaries, such as what grapes may be grown, maximum grape yields, alcohol level, and other quality factors, may also apply before an appellation name may legally appear on a wine bottle label."

I really don't see what an "appellation" has to do with the Habsburg Monarchy.

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.203.39 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary page is perhaps more helpful in this case (where it defines appellation as "a name, title or designation"). —Sowlos  12:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg Hereditary Lands[edit]

That shouldn't redirect here, as it refers to a distinct concept from the subject of this article. The term "Habsburg Hereditary Lands" refers not to "all territories held on a hereditary basis by the House of Habsburg" but specifically to the lands held by the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs prior to 1526 - that is, to Upper and Lower Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the littoral provinces, Tyrol, the Vorarlberg, and the Vorlände in Southwest Germany. It does not include the Burgundian Lands, the various Iberian and Italian territories, the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Hungary, or the lands taken in the partitions of Poland, even though some of those territories were held by the family on a hereditary basis. There ought to be an article specifically about the Hereditary Lands, which comprised most of the territory of the present-day Republics of Austria and Slovenia, as well as some territories now in Croatia, Italy, and Germany. john k (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Habsburg hereditary lands" has existed since 2005; you should either replace it yourself or use WP:RFD. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Language Link[edit]

Link to the Habsburg family tree redirects to the french wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.161.76 (talk) 10 December 2013

I was wondering about that. Is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_family_tree inadequate? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1556?[edit]

Why is the 1556 the start date and why Spanish is all absent? they were Habsburg as anyone else? Hóseás (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Austrian Monarchy (Österreichische Monarchie)[edit]

Austrian Monarchy Austrian Empire existed only from 1804. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.38.182.33 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Habsburg Monarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the spelling "Hapsburg" be mentioned at all?[edit]

Until I read this page, I'd always known it as the "Hapsburg Empire". But I see that that is merely a redirect to this article's page, which uses the spelling "Habsburg" exclusively. Is "Hapsburg" a misspelling? If so, then it appears to be a common one, and therefore should perhaps be noted as such somewhere in the article. Ross Finlayson (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Details in lead[edit]

@Barjimoa: I don't think we need to detail the Habsburg marriages of the 15th century in the lead of an article that should rightly concentrate on the post-1558 (and even post-1700) period. Srnec (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the issue: history books use the term Habsburg Empire for all the territories gained by Maximilian I (and then ruled by Charles V) with his dynastic policy (which massively expanded the monarchy of 1282). But after the division of the Habsburg empire in two halves by Charles V in 1556, the term is mostly used just for the branch of Emperor Ferdinand I because the Spanish empire of Philip II may be excluded from that concept (especially when talking about "Habsburg Monarchy" rather than Habsburg Empire). However, a more limited use in the later period does not eliminate the broader use in the earlier period. For the benefit of the discussion, I'll post here some books about all of this.
1) https://books.google.it/books?id=se0wDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+Habsburg+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmgavI75XkAhXPzaQKHdvaB7EQ6AEIWjAH#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20Habsburg%20Empire&f=false
2) https://books.google.it/books?id=ffZy5tDjaUkC&pg=PA153&dq=atlas+Habsburg+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi999Lc8JXkAhXJ4KQKHcZ8D_YQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=atlas%20Habsburg%20Empire&f=false
3)https://books.google.it/books?id=Y2QSBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+Habsburg+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmgavI75XkAhXPzaQKHdvaB7EQ6AEIPjAD#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20Habsburg%20Empire&f=false
Srnec, my impression is that this article was originally based on a single book that was specifically about the Habsburg lands from 1526 (acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia) to 1806. However the concept of Habsburg Empire goes all the way back to 1273/1282 and all the way forward to 1918. Barjimoa (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's disputing that. Did you read what I wrote? I object to linking to Joanna the Mad and Mary of Burgundy in the lead. They are not on point in an article titled Habsburg Monarchy. Srnec (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...that was just a mention to explain the history of the Habsburg empire pre-1556 and its expansion via marriage. My core point is just that it should be clear that "Habsburg empire" included those Habsburg realms. Regarding the details, I can move them elsewhere if it's a problem. Barjimoa (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?[edit]

Is this about the Habsburg Monarchy which existed from 1526 to 1804 or the Habsburgs in general? Kanto7 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the Habsburg Monarchy, focused between 1282–1918.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]



Portraits[edit]

The was a section with portrait paintings of members of the Habsburg house. I can find it anymore. Does anybody have an idea what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammartaibi (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus that the sources do not capitalize "monarchy" often enough to meet MOS:CAPS's substantial-majority threshold. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg Monarchy → Habsburg monarchy – Case norm; sentence case per WP:NCCAPS; MOS:CAPS; most books on the topic use "Habsburg monarchy" in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Ngrams suggests it is a proper name, and it is consist with the July Monarchy - most other monarchies are in the form "Monarchy of Country". If there is a consensus to move, Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy should also be moved. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That n-grams clearly suggests the opposite: that it is not consistently capitalized in sources. If you looking into those books, you'll see the caps are often for title citations, running heads, etc. And July Monarchy is mich more often capped per n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The n-gram evidence does not meet the threshold of necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS and more so if one considers that n-grams do not exclude titles etc where one would expect to see title case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very mixed use in source material means we use lower-case on Wikipedia. See WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. The N-gram above is faulty, since nothing was done to eliminate most examples in titles, which are often given in title case, of course. A look at results in Google Scholar (journal search) shows usage wildly mixed, with capitalization mostly in titles not in running text, though there are exceptions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – to be consistent with our capitalisation rules. And per Cinderella157. Tony (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FWIW, this RM was closed rather too quickly, with only 4 editors input. GoodDay (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was open for a full seven days, and consensus seemed to be established. Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Habsburg Empire is an unofficial term coined by historians[edit]

Habsburg Empire officially did not exist, you can not found this term in official seals in official letters neither in any official documents. It was an umbrella term coined/invented by historians.--Longsars (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does the presence or absence of a term have to do with whether or not the thing referred to existed? Yes, it is an umbrella term coined by historians. So what? Srnec (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations by the editor User23242343, which doesn't seem to understand that they have to settle this matter on the talk page and reach consensus with other users before deleting relevant content from WP articles ([1], [2], [3], [4]), I decided to reopen this discussion in order to do so.

If I understand correctly by their edit summaries ([5]), User23242343 thinks that the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy are "not coterminous" (not the same political entity), but this claim is not sourced and doesn't justify in any way the persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations from this article. User23242343, please provide a further explanation for your edits and academic, reliable references which demonstrate that the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy are allegedly unrelated political entities. GenoV84 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Habsburg monarchy and the territories upon which the House of Habsburg used to rule over for centuries, including the Holy Roman Empire and several other European kingdoms (Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, etc.), are consistently referred to as a "personal union" or "composite monarchy" by contemporary historians, I find it rather unlikely to be the case. See the following academic reference: Burkhardt, Julia (2022). "PART IV: BETWEEN COINCIDENCE AND INTENTION – Albert II of Habsburg's Composite Monarchy (1437–39) and Its Significance for Central Europe". In Srodecki, Paul; Kersken, Norbert; Petrauskas, Rimvydas (eds.). Unions and Divisions: New Forms of Rule in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Themes in Medieval and Early Modern History (1st ed.). London and New York City: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003199007-21. ISBN 9781032057521. GenoV84 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Holy Roman Empire as a whole was definitely not part of the Habsburg monarchy as it is usually understood and as the map shows. Other than that, I have no idea what this is about. Probably this article shouldn't have an infobox. Srnec (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: was the Habsburg monarchy conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Were the two polities conterminous? And hence should the infobox of this article use the symbols and other data of the Holy Roman Empire? 10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  • no and the only things the infobox should display are the Flag of the Habsburg monarchy itself, a list of notable monarchs and the historical eras the monarchy was a part of.
In no point in time were the two polities conterminous. The Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy were also of two intrinsically different natures, one being a confederal empire and the other a collective of domains ruled by a common sovereign. The Habsburgs never ruled the Holy Roman Empire, they ruled parts of it (i.e. Duchy of Austria, Duchy of Bohemia...) as well as lands that were no part of the Empire (i.e. Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)). Lastly, it's also notable that the monarchy outlasted the Empire, continuing its existence for another century. User23242343 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: The Habsburgs were a dynasty that ruled a number of territories (such as Austria). Some of these territories were part of the Holy Roman Empire, others weren't. The Holy Roman Empire was a collection of more or less independent German states who elected an emperor (usually a Habsburg). They were not the same thing. Ltwin (talk)
@Srnec and GenoV84: pinging previous participants. User23242343 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the Habsburg monarchy and the territories upon which the House of Habsburg used to rule over for centuries, including the Holy Roman Empire and several other European kingdoms (Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, etc.), are consistently referred to as a "personal union" or "composite monarchy" by contemporary historians, it looks like there's a great overlap between the Habsburgs and the kingdoms that they used to rule. I wouldn't consider them as a single political entity but rather a confederate statehood. See the following academic reference: Burkhardt, Julia (2022). "PART IV: BETWEEN COINCIDENCE AND INTENTION – Albert II of Habsburg's Composite Monarchy (1437–39) and Its Significance for Central Europe". In Srodecki, Paul; Kersken, Norbert; Petrauskas, Rimvydas (eds.). Unions and Divisions: New Forms of Rule in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Themes in Medieval and Early Modern History (1st ed.). London and New York City: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003199007-21. ISBN 9781032057521. GenoV84 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy were definitely not coterminous (having the same borders). The symbols of the Empire should not be presented as symbols of the Monarchy. For the distinction, see Thomas Winkelbauer, "Separation and Symbiosis: The Habsburg Monarchy and the Empire in the Seventeenth Century". Srnec (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) No, per the above. It's not clear to me that there's any actual disagreement on this point, are there sources that claim that they were conterminous? signed, Rosguill talk 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habsburg_monarchy&oldid=1215541439"