Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 1

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

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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.

short variant (550 hits)
long variant (3800 hits)

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)

This page 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.

Austrian history too!

Austria has a dual claim or even stronger claim as the modern inheritor of the empire with its last leader being an Austrian Hapsburg monarch. Why not add Austria to the side of the page at the bottom along with Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.15.4 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Another editor wanted me to explain my changes to this article. Here it is, in brief:

I included the emergence of stem duchies before saying that the dukes did something. I included the important fact of the 911 election, that the dukes looked among themselves and NOT to a Carolingian from outside. I added the rivalry between Conrad and Henry and the full name of Henry's dynasty.
I added Henry's achievements against the Magyars as well as Otto's internal struggles, also including his appointing dukes and using bishops in administration.
I changed the fairy-tale like "A marriage alliance with the widowed queen of Italy gave Otto control over that nation as well." into the facts that Otto had to militarily intervene in order to gain that control.
I removed the the strange "Since from then on the Eastern Frankish realm – and not the West Frankish kingdom that was the other remainder of the Frankish kingdoms – would have the blessing of the Pope." - as if the Western kingdom (France) or other states did not have papal blessings too - I changed that into the substantial fact that Germany would now be tied to Italy and Rome and that German kings would be future emperors.
"In contemporary and later writings, this coronation would also be referred to as translatio imperii, the transfer of the Empire from the Romans to a new Empire." - Translatio Imperi refers not so much to anything in 962 but to the transfer of the Empire to the Franks with Charlemagne. Otto merely took up the mantle of Charlemagne.
"The term imperator Romanorum only became common under Conrad II (later than his crowning in 1027, thus in the early-middle 11th century) after the Great Schism." Totally wrong. Otto II called himself Imperator Romanorum. Conrad II did so too but that had absolutely nothing with the (at the time not very important) schism of 1054. BTW, Conrad died in 1039.
I added details about the policies of Otto II, Otto III and Henry II.
"In the early 11th century, the eastern kingdom was not "German" but a "confederation" of the old Germanic tribes of the Bavarians, Alemanns, Franks and Saxons." reads a) like someone with a grudge trying to instill into readers that the kingdom was "not German", which is an anachronism both ways. But the kingdom certainly was NOT a "confederation", not independent states forming a union, certainly not after Otto I cleaned house. And duchies etc. existed in France and England too.
"The Empire as a political union probably only survived because of the strong personal influence of King Henry the Saxon and his son, Otto." - It is not the Empire but the kingdom. Henry had nothing to do with any Empire. And whether different rulers could not have succeeded is speculation.
"How exactly the king was chosen thus seems to be a complicated conglomeration of personal influence, tribal quarrels, inheritance and acclamation by those leaders that would eventually become the collegiate of Electors." - the sentence is incomplete. After "How exactly ..." I expect an "is ..." which never comes. And this overview article is hardly the place to inform readers that thins are too complicated to be explained.
"Already at this time the dualism between the "territories," then those of the old tribes rooted in the Frankish lands, and the King/Emperor, became apparent. Each king preferred to spend most time in his own homelands; the Saxons, for example, spent much time in palatinates around the Harz mountains, among them Goslar. This practice had only changed under Otto III (king 983, Emperor 996–1002), who began to utilise bishoprics all over the Empire as temporary seats of government." - Bishoprics were used before Otto III and they never replaced travelling from Pfalz to Pfalz. All depepended on local circumstances.
"Also, his successors, Henry II, Conrad II and Henry III, apparently managed to appoint the dukes of the territories." - already Otto I did that!
"It is thus no coincidence that at this time, the terminology changes and the first occurrences of a regnum Teutonicum (German Kingdom) are found." - How is it no coincidence. And when actually is "at this time"?
We need no "The glory of the Empire" prose, nor ambiguous terms like "secular leaders"
"Since lay investiture allowed secular rulers a measure of control over the Church in a given area" - which otherwise they wouldn't have had?
"(and therefore, over the minds of a king's subjects)" reads like mumbojumbo.
"the limits of any would-be ruler's power" - why would-be? Henry was a ruler!
"mythical roots" is not what this is about. Mythical roots sounds like the Franks' descent from Troy.

Deposuit (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date of creation

Charlemagne was the 1st Holy Roman Emperor as well as 1st (in later-recognized numeral scheme) King of France. He was crowned 1st Holy Roman Emperor (having founded the Holy Roman Empire under Papal authorization) in 800, not 962. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article disambiguates between the various Carolingian Emperors and the line starting with Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor. "There was no emperor in the west between 924 and 962." Dimadick (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article continues to ignore the plain fact that many, if not most historians begin the revived Western Empire with Charles the Great, not Otto. A source cites Otto as the first emperor, but many others could equally be cited to say that Charles was.--Gazzster (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with El Willstro and Gazzster: the article draws a tenuous divide between the Carolingian "Emperors of the Romans" and the Ottonian "Holy Roman Emperors", which is in opposition to the overwhelming majority of established historians. In response to Dimadick, the existence of an interregnum of less than forty years in no way invalidates the continuity between the Carolingian and Ottonian Empires. gergis (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And neither does the fact that the title varies between the Carolingian and Ottonian emperors. Indeed, it varies after the Ottonians as well. Both the Carolongians and Ottonians identified themselves with the revival of the Western Empire by the Papacy. While this revival was theoretical (Charlemagne and Charles V came close to making it a reality) it was real. The emperor was regarded as the first prince of Christendom, with theoretical sovereignty over the West. It was not unheard of that the emperor attempted to exercise that sovereignty.--Gazzster (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Charlemagne was the first medieval Roman Emperor in the West, but not a "Holy Roman Emperor", this is beside a silly expression. The Holy Roman Empire is a conception that was developed during Ottonian, Salian and Staufer era combining the kingdoms of Germany and Italy (and Burgundy). The German expressions fit better imo. "Roman-Frankish" and "Roman-German" emperors.--MacX85 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ottonian, Salian, Staufen, Habsburg, etc titles (of which there were several) were not for Germany exclusively. The titles identified with the old Western Roman Empire. The Roman empire was universal. The claim implied by the title 'Roman emperor, Holy Roman emperor' (or whatever) was universal. Charlemagne was the first Western ruler to make that claim with papal support. Otto laid claim to the same title and the same concept, ie, the revival of a universal Roman Empire supported by the Catholic Church.The revived Roman empire was not confined to Germany. In theory it extended to the ends of the Catholic world. This was recognised if theory and occasionally in fact in medieval politics. For example, when the Western Church split in the 14th/15th century it was the Emperor, as temporal head of Christendom, to whom the Christian princes turned. In the liturgy of the Catholic Church,prayers were made for the Emperor before any other prince. I really don't see how users find it hard to recognise that.--Gazzster (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the title "Holy Roman Emperor" doesn't fit for Charlemagne and his age. He held the title of a "Roman Emperor" and the Frankish Empire and the state that was later called Holy Roman Empire are not the same so we cannot call both empire's emperors "Holy"... I didn't say anything about German exclusiveness btw.--MacX85 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Otto didn't call himself Holy Roman Emperor either. It wasn't until 1254 that that particular title was used consistently. There were a variety of titles; Roman Emperor, Augustus, etc. Though the exact form changed, the concept was the same: Emperor of the (revived) Roman Empire.There is a direct continuity with the role Charlemagne(and his Frankish successors) claimed.--Gazzster (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the emperors called themselves "Holy". It's only the English Wikipedia that uses this expression. The empire was called "Holy" by the time you mentioned. My point is that while the title of the emperor always stayed the same, the empire didn't. There is no direct political continuation between the ancient Western Roman Empire and Charlemagne's Frankish Empire, nor between the Frankish and the Roman-German Empire, except that the rulers claimed to be their direct heirs. Usually we take different terms for different states and their rulers even if the contemporaries didn't.--MacX85 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Empire was not a state. It was not Germany (not at least until it was called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation).It was universal. It was a political concept, to which no particular territory was attached. The article should explain the political concept of the Empire, and then, afterwards, sure, say that it becomes associated largely with what we now call Germany after Otto.--Gazzster (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I said nothing about German exclusiveness. I tried to explain that we have 2 states in the middleages that have no direct continuation: the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne (800 (or before)till 843) and another one, the socalled Holy Roman Empire (from 962 till 1806). This is an undeniable fact. Don't get me wrong: I'm totally on your side about the concept of the Roman Empire and that it was universal. It's just this "Holy" that I can't accept for Charlemagne since it indicates that there was an unbroken political continuation from 800 to 1806.--MacX85 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you're saying too. But if this article is to comprehensively treat the subject, it must explain the concept of the revived Empire and make some allusion to the Carolingians. Otherwise the imperial title makes no sense historically.--Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this fact is well given in the section "History"--MacX85 (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha! So it is.--Gazzster (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's much more complicated and there was a political continuation from Charlemagne, who was seen as the first emperor (Charles I), to the later emperors. What about Arnulf of Carinthia, Charles descendent, who became emperor quite a time before Otto I and ruled only the eastern part of Charlemagnes former empire. Was he no Holy Roman Emperor? Otto I was only the first emperor, who was not from the Carolingian dynasty. (Besides, Otto was also a descendant of Charlemagne(!) and signed still as Roman Emperor (without 'Holy').) Mentioning Charlemagne as the first emperor would be right as well as mentioning Arnulf of Carinthia as the first emperor from Eastern Francia, who ruled not also West Francia , or Otto I as the first emperor outside the (male) Carolingian dynasty. --Henrig (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Clarification: Documents of the Ottonian emperors were signed in Latin with the title Roman Emperor (or Emperor of the Romans) and additional still with the title King of Francia (or of the Franks) (without 'East'), but I'm not sure, if already Otto I signed as Roman Emperor or if he always used the title Augustus. --Henrig (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about the continuation of emperors. Arnulf was East Frankish king and Roman emperor just like Otto I. but the division of the Frankish kingdom wasn't fixed until Henry I. of East Francia and Charles the Simple of West Francia recognized each other as sovereign kings in their realms. Before that a reunification was generally possible.--MacX85 (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Who reads literature from the Holy Roman Empire will see that the people back then actually regarded Charlemagne as the founder of the Empire. This sould at least be mentioned in the article. -- Orthographicus (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The article does make allusion to this in 'Carolingian Forerunners'. But it should figure in the lead as well.Gazzster (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The usual suspects

Well I see this is quite an issue. It should be. A Holy Roman Empire without the first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne, is somewhat of a travesty. I see a lot of drawing of fine distinctions. Frankly, baloney. Draw all the fine distinctions you like, Pope Leo created the empire by bestowing the name on Charlemagne. Now some of us want to take it away. At the time the name was bestowed Charlemagne held France, Germany and North Italy as well as most of eastern Europe. This is an empire. While you can equivocate the name to mean only Germany such equivocation is historical distortion. No, we need the original Roman Emperor to be in his empire. I think we are mainly all agreed. It is time for a general use of Holy Roman Empire to manifest itself in the article. All the specific definitions can be instances of it. Frankly I see the article as Germanist. The ghost of the Kaiser is at work here. This is something akin to Hitler trying to portray the Deutche Volk as the original true blue Germans who are entitled to give orders to all the rest. So, I would object on the grounds that this is not an objective approach. When I get to this article I certainly am going to introduce the issue of the meaning of Roman or Holy Roman Empire both general and specific. It could be done I think with a minimum of alteration.Dave (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree regarding Charlemagne. Almost all of the pre-20th century histories I've read say it was he who revived the Empire and that it was he who was the first emperor, not Otto. I agree there seems to be an agenda in tossing away Charlemagne. I seriously doubt it's a "Germanist" one though. It might be a Byzantine one.--ChristianHistory (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks Botteville. The Emperor was, in Catholic circles at least, the first prince of Christendom , and the empire was regarded as universal.Gazzster (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

All the 20th century historians I have read, certainly from the past fifty years, identify Otto as the first emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire." History consists of discontinuities as much as continuities. Charlamagne saw himself as the Roman Emperor. What he ruled certainly was not the same as the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople, let alone Rome, but he and his followers sought to restore that empire. The Holy Roman Empire was constituted, organized and administered very differently from Charlamagne's empire. It was sufficiently different that historians consider the discontinuities more informative and significant than the continuities.

Our responsibility is to provide an account of what significant views are. The views of academic historians are certainly more significant than those of any WP editor. If there is a difference in how 19th century historians viewed the HRE from how 20th century historians, or whatever is the mainstream view of historians, we can say so in the article, but we need to make clear what is the mainstream views of historians now. It just doesn't matter whther we like those views or not. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Any number of reputable historians, researched articles in publications like the Britannica describe the rewvived Western Empire as a creation of Charles the Great and Pope Leo III. References have already been provided in previous discussions. This is the mainstream view. THe imperial title was held by the Franks, fell into disuse, and was revived by the Ottonians. THe Roman Empire administered by the Ottonians was not confgined to the administrative borders of GErmany. THat is clear. The Ottonian power base was Germany, Italy and Burgundy but the title of Emperor implied suzereignty over all of Christendom.Gazzster (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Otto sometimes claimed continuities between himself and Charlemagne. But the leading experts today e.g. Gerd Althoff see Otto as the first emperor of the HRE because it was during his reign that the empire took its distinct form. I think some editors who do not understand history have a black-and-white view that in history it is all one way or another. But no serious modern historian has this approach and to look for such views leads only to misunderstanding historians and history. Charlemagne claimed continuity with Augustus Caeser. So did the Czars and Kaiser. Historians note this, but do not conclude that Charlemagne (or Nicholas II or Wilhelm I) was a Roman Emperor, because the empire he ruled was not what any historian recognizes as the Roman Empire. But this does not mean that there were no continuities in European history. To say that Otto was the first emperor of the HRE does not mean that there were no links between him and rulers of prior polities. if this is confusing to less-educated people who do not understand the methods and approaches of modern historians, well, we should do our best to explain it clearly for a general audience. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That Charlemagne reigned over the Holy Roman Empire and was the first emperor is the consensus of pre-20th century historians. The evidence didn't change; the history didn't change; the modern historians POV did. And it is undeniable that Charlemagne reigned over what was considered to be the revived Western Roman Empire. The Wikipedia article on Romanesque architecture and a host of other Wikipedia articles allude to this. Also, the Emperor Michael I Rangabe even acknowledged Charlemagne as co-emperor in 812. --ChristianHistory (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, let's include the view of 19th century historians, along with a statement that the view of historians has changed, which is simply honest. And let's include the view of 20th century historians. But when we provide the "mainstream view" this is obviously that of current historians, represented in 20th (and if available 21st) century sources. Should the article on physics favor the views of 19th century physicists over those of 20th century physicists? Should the article on biology favor the views of 19th century biologists over those of 20th century biologists? How silly! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just 19th century historians. It's the vast majority of chroniclers, ecclesiastical historians, and secular historians up to the 20th century. I'll leave the editing to Gazzster, who I'm sure will be interested. By the way, the comparison of history to science is faulty. --ChristianHistory (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So what was the Holy Roman Empire in medieval times? It was the belief that the Roman Empire in the West would be restored by the pope and a mighty king of the Franks/or Germans who would be considered emperor. The empire of Charlemagne wasn't the same as the one of Otto nor the one of Francis II. The political constitution changed over the centuries but the title of emperor remained. In this sense Charlemagne was indeed the first emperor and was regarded as such by medieval chroniclers. Otto was the one who permanently linked the title of emperor to the kingship of Germany/East Francia.--MacX85 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's any consensus in the academic community today that the Holy Roman Empire begins with Otto. Here's an undergrad class at Georgetown, for example, that begins with Charlemagne. The problem here is basically a question of semantics. I don't think any of us really disagree on the basic historical facts here. There were some continuities from Charlemagne to Otto I and later, and also some discontinuities. That leaves it a matter of interpretation when we say the "Holy Roman Empire" began. Most historians aren't really interested in these questions and don't discuss them. A few are very interested - and most of these are going to be ones who want to challenge the traditional orthodoxy of continuity. But really, all they are doing is making a semantical argument. There's no right answer here. Given that, it seems to me that we ought to acknowledge the fact that the origins of the empire are unclear. Given that the term "Holy Roman Empire" wasn't really in use until after the extinction of the Hohenstaufen, as well as the very real political transformations that occurred around that time and which transformed the High Medieval German Kingdom of the Salians and Hohenstaufens into the patchwork mess of the early modern Reich, one might just as easily argue for 1254 as for 962 or 800 - and, indeed, most of the histories of the Holy Roman Empire to be found on Amazon deal only with the last 300 years or so (books by Peter Wilson, Joachim Whaley, an edited volume by Jason Philip Coy). By the way, here's Whaley's assessment of the origins of the Reich, in a two volume work on the early modern reich to be released later this month, but available for inside viewing on Amazon:

Indeed, neither the Reich nor the 'German nation' can be easily defined at this time. The Reich's origins lay in the translation of the inheritance of the Roman Empire northwards by Charlemagne and the gradual assumption of the imperial title by the German kings after Otto I (912-973), who succeeded as king of Germany in 936, subjugated Italy, and became king of the Lombards in 951-952, and was crowned emperor in 962.

So, both Charlemagne and Otto get a mention. That seems about right. Certainly better than just claiming Otto founded it, which actually has many of the same problems as claiming Charlemagne did. In some sense the Empire dates back to Charlemagne, but crucial features of the later Empire did not appear until the time of Otto, to the point that some historians consider the Empire, properly speaking, to have begun with him. Even that is not definitive, as the name of the empire, and its basic character, were not really established until several centuries after even Otto. Why should we be kneejerk about this? john k (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for giving an intelligent response. --ChristianHistory (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Universality, theocracy, and world domination

I think the empire's claims to universality need to be further addressed to explain its nature and (theoretical) aspirations, also to get to terms with a lot of ethnic stuff predominantly irrelevant for the empire's conceptuation at least during its first half of existence, and maybe to further shape out how the empire on the one hand and titles granted to individuals (such as king, emperor, Augustus, etc.) on the other were two largely separate issues when it came to the HRE. In other words, I'm talking about religious and theological pretenses (to a degree one might call the HRE a theocracy, as long as one differs that term from ecclesiocracy, which is rule of priests) that were used to justify the empire's existence and universal authority, complete with its claim to world domination, to its contemporaries, as religion was what held the Medieval world together. By its self-definition, the empire never intended to be "German" in any way, and that's why "of a German nation" (I know that's not the common English translation) was added only very late to its official name.

First, Charlemagne came up with the concept of translatio imperii to the Franks because the latter part of the Early Middle Ages was obsessed with the Dogma of Four Kingdoms as found in Daniel 2, which held that Judgment Day was to commence after four "global" powers (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome) had ruled the earth, so as to continue the Roman empire and thereby keep the end of the world at bay, Charlemagne said that Rome had never died and was in fact living on as his kingdom. It's in fact this religious idea behind translatio imperii which connects Charlemagne to the Holy Roman Empire. If anything, all trustees of the Holy Roman Empire althrough the Middle Ages considered Charlemagne as their founder for this, it's definitely not some modern legend. Even if it's just some Medieval propaganda, it should be mentioned as such.

By the time of the Ottonians, this Dogma of Four Kingdoms was expanded by a special kind of Millennialism where people believed that the "thousand-year reign" of Jesus was to indicate the timespan between his incarnation and his Second Coming, and together with the Medieval inclination for round numbers, people feared the year 1000 as the date of the apocalypse. Otto III is said to have spent the night of New Year's Eve from 999 to 1000 in prayer inside Charlemagne's tomb so he would be with his most magnificient predecessor when the dead would rise from the grave. This perceived proximity of Armageddon applied even more urgency to the empire's holy aspirations related to its strong ties with papacy, which was the quest to unite all of the then-known world in one empire, under one God, and under one supreme ruler, the Emperor of All Emperors, so on Judgment Day he could submit a human race of upright Christians into God's hands.

The two current first sentences at History and the section Analysis just don't cut it to get anywhere near those religiously-justified aspirations of universality aka world domination as the pivotal justification fors its existence and its expansion, particulary towards the east. Gazzster and others in an earlier, slightly different debate on the relation between Charlemagne and the empire were kind enough to supply some scholarly sources for the issues mentioned:

"France, Poland, Hungary, and Denmark were initially included [within the empire], and Britain and Spain were nominal components"

Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia[1]

"In 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Roman emperor, probably perceived more as a personal title than as a reference to a particular territorial rule. [...] The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar; hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom. [...] [The empire's] control over England, Sweden, and Spain was [...] nominal. [...]"

Columbia Encyclopedia[2]

"Why, it may well be asked, seeing that the Roman crown made the Emperor ruler of the whole habitable globe, was it thought necessary for him to add to it minor dignities which might be supposed to have been already included in this supreme one? The reason seems to be that the imperial office was conceived of as something different in kind from the regal, and as carrying with it not the immediate government of any particular kingdom, but a general suzerainty over and right of controlling all. Of this a pertinent illustration is afforded by an anecdote told of Frederick Barbarossa. Happening once to inquire of the famous jurists who surrounded him whether it was really true that he was 'lord of the world,' one of them simply assented, another, Bulgarus, answered, 'Not as respects ownership.' In this dictum, which is evidently conformable to the philosophical theory of the Empire, we have a pointed distinction drawn between feudal sovereignty, which supposes the prince original owner of the soil of his whole kingdom, and imperial sovereignty which is irrespective of place, and exercised not over things but over men, as God's rational creatures."

James Brye, The Holy Roman Empire, 1901 [3]

"Yet at the time the Pope's act, as if by inspiration, well expressed the theocratic nature of Charlemagne's monarchy. He was the new David, the Lord's Anointed, chosen to guide the Christian people in the City of God on earth, and this imprint the new Empire of the West and its subsequent development, the Holy Roman Empire, never lost."

Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, 1952

A final source may be found in the articles Universal power and Dominium mundi.

Also, regarding irrelevant ethnic issues (which are abundant over at the atrocity called Kingdom of Germany), I'd really appreciate if people on these talkpages would stop using the term "Germanic" as some synonym for "German" while trying to make the case that all the inhabitans from East Francia up to the Federal Republic of Germany were ethnic Germans or that the empire was purely a Germans-only issue (or in other words, "Same shit, different potties", if you pardon my French, in regard to the different political entities throughout history). Germanic is a broader term which also includes the Anglo-Saxons aka English and the Scandinavians, for example. Germanics don't even originate from what would later be the HRE and Germany, they're from Scandinavia. It's just that the Romans first came in contact with them just north of the Alps, and even they were aware that these people had originated from far further north, see the saying of Scandinavia as a vagina gentis in regard to Germanic peoples. Today, we have this tricky mess because English chose to adopt its name for modern Germany from Latin Germania. --79.193.57.65 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I applaud someone pointing out that the Holy Roman Empire and the German state are not the same thing.Certainly not in early medieval times, when every state in Western Europe was of teutonic origin (France, the Franks.England, the Angles and Saxons. Italy, the Lombards. The Spanish states, the Visigoths).The unified state we now call Germany was really an invention of Bismark. Gazzster (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The unified state we call Germany was an invention of Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl. I don't really get why it's okay to trace the Federal Republic back to Bismarck, but then have to draw a firewall at 1871 and pretend that Bismarck created the idea of a German state out of whole cloth. If you read what people in the eighteenth century were actually saying, they believed that the Holy Roman Empire=Germany, and that it was the political entity of the German people. The idea of creating a new German Reich in the nineteenth century did not necessarily mean a restoration of the old Reich, but certainly the associations were there. The fact that German-speakers lived outside the Empire, and that the 18th century Empire included Czechs, Flemish, Walloons, Slovenes, Italians, and so forth, is also pretty irrelevant - no political entity in Europe was ethnically homogeneous. The idea that the Holy Roman Empire represented a common political identity for the German people was right there in the name, and is not something made up by latter-day nationalists; Kleindeutsch nationalists were, in fact, usually fairly contemptuous of the old Reich. The Holy Roman Empire obviously wasn't a modern nation-state, but its connection with Germany and "the German Nation" was far more than coincidental. john k (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the subject is quite easy. You simply have to read what the contemporaries wrote and said. And if you do so, you will surely see that a German national identity (including the Suiss, Austrians, Dutchmen and Luxembourgers) evolved during a longer process from the 10th to the 12th century. No one can deny that. The people of that time felt Germand and regarded the HRE as their state. The fact that non-German peoples lived within the empire didn't effect these feelings. The Germans knew that they were Germans but that the Frenchmen or Czechs weren't. You say the present-day Germany doesn't have anything to do with the HRE? You're right and wrong at the same time. 100 years ago, German (deutsch) included, as I've already said, also the Austrians, the Swiss or the Luxembourgers. Even the Dutchmen called themselves Nederduitschers (Lower Germans) until the end of the 19th century. The present-day "Germany" is only a little part of what Germany historically was. In my opinion, the Federal Republic of Germany is an arrogant... because it uses the name "Germany" although it is only a part of the ethnic and cultural entity historically called Germany. Was Goethe a German? Yes, he was as German as Wolfgang Amadé Mozart, Gottfried Keller, Johann Strauss or Immanuel Kant. All those people called themselves Germans and regarded themselves as part of the same nation. According to the "new" definition, none of them was German as nobody of them was a citizen of the Federal Republic. But who cares for new definitions when historical events are discussed? Those people felt German. End of discussion. -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"In my opinion, the Federal Republic of Germany is an arrogant... because it uses the name "Germany" although it is only a part of the ethnic and cultural entity historically called Germany." <- Just like the "United States of America"? ;) So while I very much agree with what you're saying, that sentence strikes me as very, very odd. :) Varana (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

^[1]== Capital revisited == I suspect that this historical version of the Holy Roman Empire is a 'red herring' instigated by the Vatican. The organization claiming all 'holiness and ruler-ship over the World' since the priesthood of Rome was converted from Mithraism to Christianity (around 350 AD) is the leader of that priesthood - the Bishop of Rome, who assumed the title held by the head priest of that former Mithraism, and later, the title assumed by the Emperor of the Roman Empire, Pontifex Maximus. This title is commonly shortened to Pontiff or Pope. If one reads this well documented webpage, [ http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/claims.htm ], you will see that the claim made by the Pope on his coronation is: "Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ." That puts the Monarchy of the supposed Germanic Holy Roman Empire in a subject position to the Pontifex Maximus of Rome (and now, the Vatican). Further activities of the Pontiff of Rome, in his secular role as World Ruler, can be found in the historical records of Pope Innocent III, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Nicholas V, Pope Alexander VI and Pope Pius XII.

As discussed in Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 4#Capital.3F, the Empire had no true capital. This is discussed online at, for example, WikiAnswers and also stated in history books such as The Times Atlas of World History. (For example, p. 118: "Germany, with no capital city and no universities, lagged behind [the West].") A more definitive reference would be nice, though. It certainly is contrary to the claim that it was Rome during this time. Nevertheless, there are references in Wikipedia to Vienna becoming its capital in the 1430s and in the 1550s in other articles. And this article says it happened in 1448! Clearly there needs to be some harmonization here. Calbaer (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think one needs to make a distinction between the seat of the emperor and the capital city. 'Capital city' is a faily modern idea. In early mediaevel times the cenre of the state was wherever the king happened to be at the time, and the court was a mobile institution. In later medieval and early modern times the seat of the Empire would have corresponded to the principal city of the elected emperor's state, whether that was Austria, Bohemia, Bavaria or wherever. For the last four hundred years or so before its dissolution the seat of the emperor was Vienna, but only because the emperor happened to be Archduke of Austria. We can rule out Rome as a capital city, because it was never really within the imperial orbit. No organ of imperial government resided there. The Reichstag certainly did not sit there. The emperor was crowned there, but not since Charles V. Rome might be said to occupy a place of honour but I think its safe to say there was no imperial capital.Gazzster (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll still get references to a kingdom have a "chief seat" and the like, and by the later middle ages usually some bureaucratic departments are fixed in one or several places. There are definitely important "seats" of Germany in the earlier period when it is still a political unity, like Mainz, Augsburg, Magdeburg, and so on ... much like England at the same time had Winchester, London, and so on. No one capital of course in the modern sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the early modern period, with which I am most familiar, I don't think it makes much sense to say the empire had a capital. Kings were elected in Frankfurt and crowned in Aachen or Frankfurt, while the Reichstag met in various cities but eventually settled in Regensburg. The emperors normally resided in Vienna, but Rudolph II lived in Prague and Charles VII in Munich. Of the two imperial courts, the Reichskammergericht (Imperial Chamber Court) met in Speyer and then Wetzlar, while the Reichshofrat (Aulic Council) met in Vienna. The article ought to highlight these different institutions and their seats, but should not declare there to be a single capital. john k (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The empire had Imperial seats, but no official capital at any time of its existence. Early on, at least up to the High Middle Ages, the emperor was a beggar that had to stay nomadic along with the court in order to be given food by varying short-time residences, he certainly didn't have the monetary means to feed all his servants as he was poorer than even the poorest of the empire's dukes obligated to him by fealty. Later-on, the struggle between the emperors and the empire at large versus the varied local dukes, princes, and Imperial estates was the main obstacle to assigning a capital. As user:john k has already mentioned, it's not true that Vienna was the Imperial seat for all of the last four-hundred years, Prague was pretty popular with the emperors as well. Beside the Imperial seats, the coronation cities, Aachen and later Frankfurt, were of prominent significance with the empire as well, just as were the cities of Imperial Diets.

After the Thirty Years' War, the centers of political activity shifted towards Austria and Prussia, two powers which also due to secularization were actually rather centrifugal to the religiously justified empire. Neither Austria nor Prussia desired much business with the empire anymore after the war as they were rather minding their own affairs, effectively turning into something like modern nation-states of their own and treating the other German lands like foreign countries, in fact. It took until Bismarck to change these policies, even though the idea of a unified nation-state was popular with the radical democrats since the War of the Sixth Coalition, basically an idea imported from the French revolution.

Furthermore, it's not true that the empire had no universities. For one, there's Bologna, Padua, I'm not certain about Naples still being part of the empire by 1224, whereas north of the Alps, there were the Universities of Prague, Cologne, Erfurt, and again I'm not certain about Krakow in 1364. --79.193.36.173 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Naples and Krakow were pretty much never part of the empire. Heidelberg is a few years older than Cologne and Erfurt. john k (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It did have a capital, though outside its own borders, namely, Rome. However, Otto III even had his residence there. I think we are not too far away from calling Rome capital of the HRE if we call Amsterdam capital of the contemporary Kingdom of the Netherlands, where there is neither any state institution to my knowledge. Though, of course, the Queen of the Netherlands does exercise jurisdiction there. --77.4.68.132 (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rome was never more than a desired or iconic capital of the empire but not a real one.--MacX85 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Editting Lead Section

I find the list of countries in the lead section is extraneous and ill-placed, with such countries in addition to the Holy Roman Empire's map to be found in the infobox. Does anyone else support the removal of this last paragraph?--Xuxalliope (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The map is no accurate for 1600. Not even for 1400: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/HRR_1400.png/561px-HRR_1400.png --Lubiesque (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

it appears that someone committed vandalism by inserting "Charles the CheeseFart" in the section "Carolingian forerunners", penultimate line. I do not know how to determine what it should be so it can be fixed.

Victorsteelballs (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"transnational Empire" a pleonasm?

Isn't a "transnational Empire" (as mentioned in the article introduction) a pleonasm? Looking at the definition of "empire". I would vote to delete the word "transnational" as it's a bit confusing (I first read it as "transitional"...) Tom (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

idem-Ilhador- (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Establishment of the Empire, 825 or 827, not 962

The birth of the "Holy Roman Empire", or the Empire, or Germany, was likely in 825 or 827, and NOT in 962. The Ottonian Dynasty did unify the concept of the Empire for historical visibility, but the Empire itself found its official foundation not in Charlemagne or Otto but in Louis the German. Furthermore, the "Holy Roman Empire", i.e. Germany, is, for all intents and purposes, still alive and whole today. While the name of Germany has often been changed and of question, the effect of Germany has always been the same. The nation is ruled by a king (president, chancellor, etc.), a diet of nobles (or reichstag, etc.), a judicial system, and a clear pseudo-religious presence of the Christian faith. I challenge the entire succinctness of this article because the beginning of the German state is not 962 and because its collapse was not in 1806. We now live at a point in history wherein we may discern that Napoleon's rise was a mere interregnum of the German state, and that the Ottonian dynasty was not the beginning of the German state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.26.18 (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. However this article is about a particular political state and not the country of Germany. Louis I created a legal state inside Germany, but not a natural sovereign power base as Otto did (some evidence of this is that Louis' state failed and Otto's succeeded). One could also say that Chlotair II founded the German state because he gave Pepin of Landen a hereditary right to rule there. Or that Clovis founded the German state because he gave a hereditary state to a son, which became the state of Austrasia including Franconia. But those were Frankish colonial states inside Germany. One could also say that Chlodio's realm was a state because the Romans recognized it as allied entity. Or that the German state is prehistoric. Those are all Franks and not proper Germans, and they did not establish a permanent state.76.126.232.191 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

kingdom of Bohemia as separate part of the empire?

"At its peak in 1050, under Emperor Henry III, it included the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Kingdom of Burgundy."

I wonder why Bohemia is mentioned of one of the parts of the empire alongside the Kingdom of Germany. Wasn't it a duchy when its ruler became subject to the German king? That would make it part of the Kingdom of Germany rather than separate from it, would it not?--MacX85 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Bohemia remained a kingdom, just like Germany. As you can read on the page Kingdom of Bohemia, its rulers were a prince-electors of the HRE. They were not formally subject to the German king except in his role as rex romanorum. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead ends with incomplete gibberish

I'm glad to see there are some active editors for this page... The lead seems to have be edited down so far as to end incoherently...

re: "after many years without authority in the majority of its territory" duh-huh? The HRE was the AUTHORITY in Central Europe for 1500+ Petty princes so can someone retie the lead together so it makes sense to the average 12 year old who has no clue as to what the term entails. Apparently the 'Leads are too long' gremlins have been devaluing the article here too as they have elsewhere. // FrankB 22:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire of The "German" Nation since 962

Given that control of and naming of "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" has included reference to "The German Nation" and been composed of nearly exclusively German leaders, is it not appropriate to refer to this Organisation at all times by its full and proper name of "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation"? Much disinformation and confusion stems both from unclear definition of where the Catholic church ends and this (still existent) empire begins. Referring to it globally by its full and proper name seems only appropriate. Much the way we refer the "The United States of America" as opposed to simply "The United States" in all documents on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.160.32.1 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The prevailing german character was indisputable, but this name was used only in german literature, in the rest of the empire and rest of the world was allways used Holy Roman Empire (Sacrum Romanum Imperium). The kings and emperors were not allways from the German families and it was not a purely German union, there lived also French, Italians, Dutch, Austrians, Danes, Czechs, Slovenes or Sorbs and even Emperor seat cities were not allways in German lands. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are completly wrong. In French-speaking countries you have also the addition of "germanique" in the name, the same with Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Turkish, Norwegian, Portuguese. Where do you have your completly wrong informations!? Prague was a German-speaking city during the time of the Holy Roman Empire. (the majority of Prague was German-speaking till ~1850) --21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.208.224 (talk)

This is point is of vital importance imo and I have tagged the article accordingly. Having done so it seems appropriate to start a new section here to discuss, so I've cut/pasted the rest of my comment into a new section (no disrespect intended to this sections authors). --LookingGlass (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

the official name change happened in 1512 (Diet of Cologne) so pre 1512 it is (officialy) only the HRE (btw until the early 12th century it was only called Roman Empire with out holy but it is too confusing to use that) - and in English it is usually just called HRE for it 78.42.252.102 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Would just like to add to the discussion - the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" fell out of use officially by the 1770s - it was only used on an unofficial basis in general to refer to the growing 'german' element of the empire

See: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40109811?seq=11&Search=yes&searchText=Roman&searchText=Holy&searchText=Empire&searchText=Prussia&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPrussia%2BHoly%2BRoman%2BEmpire%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=8&ttl=3695&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null

- H. Weisert, 'Der Reichstitel bis 1806', Archiv fur Diplomatik, xl (1994), p. 441-513. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made the relevant change to the article - just a small addendum at the end of the 'German' part of the name section - please let me know if there are any problems with ref/formatting. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

New and improved map!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Holy_Roman_Empire_at_it%27s_greatest_extent_in_the_year_1200_A.D.png

This is the Holy Roman Empire at it's greatest extent in the year 1200 A.D.

What do you all think? Keeby101 (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to see a source for this. (I also don't like PNGs.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are several: http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1200/index.html

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/eu08b.html

http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/holy-roman-empire1.htm

Read all of source 3 as there are 2 pages. Keeby101 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Two of these are not reliable sources. The second is a hobbyist's site that does not provide any references. The third describes the south of Italy as a "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" -- in reality, that state was formed only in 1816, ten years after emperor Francis dissolved the HRE and declared himself emperor of Austria instead. It also reads like a summary of Wikipedia with a different map.

The first, Euratlas, looks somewhat reliable, but it draws southern Italy in the same color as the HRE, while at the same time the Empire's Italian border is drawn just south of the Papal States. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The maps on the page are detailed, with overlays onto current borders or showing contemporaneous regions. Your map looks like an ink blot. I don't see it as an improvement, nor do I see why the existing maps on the page need to be replaced. There is already a highly detailed map of the extent of the empire at its peak. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Laszlo. Irānshahr (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am back everybody. I changed the infobox image and I do have my sources to back it up. When it comes to Sicily of course. So I looked up the article on the Kingdom of Sicily and it turns out that the Hohenstaufen Dynasty had firm control over the Kingdom of Sicily by putting one of their family member on the Sicilian throne. And it turns out from reading this article and the Papal States article that the Holy Roman Empire control the Papal States, but the Papal states were granted autonomy by an earlier dynasty of the Holy Roman Empire. So with that being said. My map is accurate and DOES NOT LOOK LIKE AN INK BLOT!!! Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to restore the old map. The Kingdom of Sicily may have been ruled by a Staufer, but that doesn't make it part of the HRE. E.g., the Habsburgs later ruled Hungary, but never incorporated it into the Empire. See also the map to right, which shows clear territorial boundaries for the HRE, and the discussion below about Prussian membership of the HRE, below. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Prussia was definitely part of the HRE

Hi all, I'm not an editor, adn I've never attempted to make any changes to wikipedia before - but I noticed a glaring inaccuracy in this particular article. The section that deals with the eastward settlement of Germans into Slavic lands has the ending sentence: 'the monastic state of the Teutonic Order (German: Deutschordensstaat) and its later German successor states of Prussia however never were part of the Holy Roman Empire.'

This is completely false - I do not know how to edit, but this really needs to be corrected. The lands of Prussia were inherited by the Hohenzollern family - who ruled the Margraviate of Bradenburg. This formed the state of Bradenburg-Prussia, which was an important part of the HRE until its dissolution in 1806. Can someone help with this please? 94.31.32.30 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But it is not incorrect, because Prussia was indeed never part of the HRE: Brandenburg was. The fact that they were both ruled at some point by the same family didn't make Prussia a part of the HRE, just like Hungary didn't become part of the HRE even though it was ruled by the Austrian Habsburgs. Basically, being part of the HRE was about territory, not about ownership (compare the below map of the HRE in 1789). Tom (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I understand your point - I can see how there can be an argument of this nature during the early years of the state of Brandenburg-Prussia, when it was merely a Personal Union, however by the Early Modern period the state was a great deal more centralised - and referred to as the Kingdom of Prussia from 1701 onwards. It was not merely two distinct territories that was ruled by one monarch - and was most definitely included in the HRE legally.

For sources, I recommend you read some historical journals on the legal structure of the HRE - if you have access to JSTOR, I can show you one right now: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175165?&Search=yes&searchText=Roman&searchText=Holy&searchText=Empire&searchText=Prussia&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPrussia%2BHoly%2BRoman%2BEmpire%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=3695&returnArticleService=showFullText

As with any state in the HRE, Prussia sought to guarantee its strength and resources in the face of the power of the Emperor - as cited in the article - Prussia's more 'vulnerable' lands (The geographic Prussian areas) were guaranteed by the imperial constitution, and considered inalienable parts of the empire. Legally, this means that those lands were part of the HRE. 10:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for that (will read in full when I'm somewhere with jstor access)! Every map I've ever seen of the HRE excludes the Prussian territories from the HRE though. It would also conflict with the explanation given on the Kingdom of Prussia page and elsewhere concerning how Frederick III (I) came to call himself King in Prussia in the first place: he could only do so because in those territories he was not technically subject to the Emperor. Tom (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I can understand that viewpoint - I can see it can easily be argued either way depending on one's view of whether the HRE is defined in strictly territorial terms, or whether to include other legal definitions within the HRE's overall structure. As with everything in History, there can easily be a lot of disagreements! (especially with the complex nature of the HRE)

I'm happy to leave this as a case of 'agree to disagree', as I completely recognise that if wikipedia is dealing with strictly territorial concerns then the lands of Prussia could be considered to not be part of the HRE. Might I suggest, however, that we re-word the quoted statement in the article slightly? I still object to the exact wording of 'and its later German successor states of Prussia', I suggest maybe changing in some way in order to make absolutely clear that it was the lands of Prussia that were not included - as the statement at the moment seems to suggest that any future 'State' of Prussia would have no involvement in the Empire. There is a difference between 'lands' and 'states', and I am happy to put this open to a vote to other editors if need be - but only if necessary. 11:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It might also help to consider that the original territory of Prussia was not considered subject to the German Confederation, the successor of the Holy Roman Empire.Gazzster (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi 'Gazzster', I am interested by this statement - I know for certain that the North German Confederation definitely included Prussia, so could you point me in the direction of a source that proves otherwise? 94.31.32.30 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was absent for a few days. I believe Gazzster is referring to the German Confederation (1815-1866), not its short-lived North German successor. The first one indeed did not include the Prussian lands. But if I understand correctly, the problem is with the following sentence: "The monastic state of the Teutonic Order (German: Deutschordensstaat) and its later German successor states of Prussia however never were part of the Holy Roman Empire." I can see what you mean here. Perhaps if we rephrase: "However, the monastic state of the Teutonic Order (German: Deutschordensstaat) and later the Prussian lands (though ruled by the Elector of Brandenburg) were never part of the Holy Roman Empire." Tom (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Turkish/Ottoman

Maybe I'm just missing it, but the information in the article does suggest that the Italian information belongs in the article. While there doesn't appear to be a direct inline citation, there isn't any for the other infobox languages either, for example, nor is there a citation for the information being added in its place. Are there sources for the Sunni Islam/Ottoman Turkish information, and is the Italian information inaccurate? If not, are there any sources that can clear this up? - Aoidh (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check Edit summary Holy Roman Empire for the German Nation!!! the German Nation!!!--Sillsdorust (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that edit summary, it doesn't verify anything because not only is Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nothing in the Wikipedia article you cited appears to be relevant to what you added. Do you have a reliable source that can verify what you're adding to the article? - Aoidh (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Kaser, Karl (2010), The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History, LIT Verlag Münster, ISBN 3-643-50190-0. Kaya, Ayhan; Kentel, Ferhat (2004), Euro-Turks: A Bridge, or a Breach, between Turkey and the European Union?, Istanbul Bilgi University--Sillsdorust (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I asked on your talk page, did you actually read these books? Which pages verify what you're adding? Judging by the discussion on your talk page, none of this is relevant to this article in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

y--Sillsdorust (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Capital

If this is an encyclopaedic article, than why do I need to look up the following information on WikiAnswers?

There was no fixed capital, only residences of the German kings and emperors like Magdeburg (under the Ottonians), Speyer (Salians), Prague (Luxemburg), Vienna (Habsburg); and some important cities like Aachen (where the king was crowned), or Regensburg (where the Reichstag was) or Nuremberg (where the imperial regalia was kept). Crock81 (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, there was no capital at all. --Otberg (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"an unbroken line of emperors running for over eight centuries"

It seems to me that this is not true. Conrad III of Germany for example, who reigned 1138–1152, was never crowned Emperor, he was "only" King of Germany. --Rosenzweig (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what the cited source states, though better in-line sourcing is needed throughout. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't even an unbroken line of kings. Dynasties died of, new kings needed to be elected, there were rival kings and civil wars. There might not have been a longer period without any king at all, but the line definitely is broken.--MacX85 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

^ ~~~~

[1] ~~~~

[1]