Talk:Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 26, 2004, March 26, 2007, March 26, 2008, March 26, 2009, and March 26, 2010.|
Well, whoever Ken Nygaard is and whatever relationship he may thing he have to Conrad II, he's no historian. "Even the minority opposition" makes the situation sound like a modern parliamentary democracy! Which one of Charlemagne's daughters? If Ken is going to make a genealogical claim like that, he should give a NAME (since we know the names of them all). --MichaelTinkler
This article has altogether too many positive adjectives and not nearly enough exposition. He was prudent, firm, genial, strong, etc., etc. And one thing the monarchy NEVER was in Germany was invulnerable. In fact, monarchs and monarchial institutions are never invulnerable. That's why they work so hard to stay in power. This is a love-letter to Conrad II rather than an encyclopedia article. And to say about Boleslav simply and without explanation "He was a subject of the German monarchy, who had quickly made himself king upon the death of emperor Henry II in 1024" is grossly inadquate. Oh, well. --MichaelTinkler
Where DID you find this, HJ? This Ken Nygaard isn't writing for an English-speaking audience. To say "Milan (Mailand)" is entirely irrelevant. The name of the city might be translated "Milano", but its German name is pointless. -MichaelTinkler
A substantive question for historians - would Aribert (and I think he's Heribert in the English version) have crowned Conrad King of Italy or King of Lombardy? Or is it King of the Lombards even this late? I don't remember (my standard excuse for everything after 1000). --MichaelTinkler
To the Milan question, Mailand was the official name for the HRE city. K Nygaard did not write Mailand. HJ
The city's name is Milano. We call it 'Milan'. If there was an 'official' language of the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century, it was Latin, not German, and the city's name was Mediolanum. --MichaelTinkler
From Ketil Nygaard's ancestor page:
- Conrad became known for showing strength and incorruptible justice in maintaining his power.
So, I cut the line about 'incorruptible justice.' By the way, his main source for the emperors seems to be Britannica Online, so if you're copying from him, HJ, and he's copying from them, it's not much use to US. --MichaelTinkler
I honestly think we need to just quit with the whole Boleslaw Chrobry was a vassal thing until a couple of people who actually can read Latin and have no Polish/German nationality to defend can do the checking. It won't hurt to add it later, and will help keep us all on track. It is very irresponsible to continue to put forward articles that beg controversy, and which cannot be supported in a way that many of us request. Also, this kind of panegyric just isn't good history -- although acceptable a hundred years ago!JHK
- would it be useful to say about Boleslaw: who was a tributary of the German kings? "Tributary" is at least true - he paid tribute. --MichaelTinkler
" But as the procession passed merrily along, three poorly-clad, miserable figures thrust their way through the glittering throng of knights and nobles who surrounded the King. They were a peasant, a widow, and an orphan, who, casting themselves at the King's feet, cried aloud for justice. The nobles would have thrust them forth, angry that they should disturb the King at such a moment. But Conrad forbade it. He commanded the procession to stop until he had heard the complaint of the poor people. Provoked at the interruption, one of the bishops urged Conrad to hurry on to the Cathedral. But the King answered him calmly,"How often have you said to me that not the hearer of the law but the doer is blessed ? It is a heavy office that I have taken up, and surely I must walk in the paths of righteousness." So he refused to move from the spot until he had judged the cause of these poor and needy folk. And it seemed to the people that happy days must be dawning for them when their king began his reign with deeds of mercy, when he seemed more eager to do justice to the oppressed than to adorn himself with robes and crowns.
The whole Empire, however, did not at once accept Conrad as ruler. As soon as Henry II died the bold and rebellious Duke of Poland at once threw off all pretence of vassalage, and proclaimed himself King of Poland. He would not bend the knee to Conrad, but in little more than a year he died. He was succeeded by his son Mesco (Mieszko II HJ.), who also took the title of King. Conrad looked at this as rebellion, and war began. But it was only after many defeats and much bitter warfare, that Poland was again subdued .At length,however, Mesco was forced to submit, and although his heart was still filled with hatred to the Germans he gave up his title of King and swore to be Conrad's faithful vassal. Soon afterwards he died. Then the land was torn asunder by civil wars. Noble fought against noble, town against town, until the land was filled with blood and ashes, and the kingdom which Boleslaw the Glorious (Boleslaw I Chrobry HJ) had built up was scattered to the winds.
There was trouble too in Italy , and plots to seize the throne there. But they came to nothing. In 1026 Conrad was crowned King of Italy, and a year later Emperor in Rome." user:H.J.
- HJ, why are you quoting this? It us popular history that verges on historical fiction; the dialogue is not original. --MichaelTinkler.
- I agree -- have you bothered to read the articles on reading and writing history that I recommended? The fact that you can quote a very dated source of the worst kind doesn't support your argument. Michael is right about using the word tributary to describe the relationship -- at least until a neutral party who reads Latin well can go over the sources from which your modern sources take their account. The last 50 years have seen incredible amounts of work done on lord-vassal relationships and legal classification of people and their roles. These relationships are incredibly more complex than you tend to state, and are often very different from what you believe them to be. Why must you insist on propagating ideas that are in question? Have you read the sources in Latin (which will mostly represent things from an imperial viewpoint, but more on that later)? Please just stop. You can write tons of stuff without going to this particular place. JHK Oh -- and the Salian article should have been called Salians or Salian Dynasty.
- Salians, I think, but wikipedia is terribly inconsistent about dynasties - that's not HJ's fault. I have been messing with the caliphs, and some of them are filed under plurals (Abbasids, Ummayads) but some of the links have been set up as singulars. I think that some people have misinterpreted the general style-recommendation of wikipedia that entries should be singulars to mean that even groups that are always referred to as groups should be treated as singular nouns. But yes, the first sentence of Salian neeeds the words 'Salians', 'dynasty', and 'Holy Roman Empire'. I don't think it had 'emperors' last night.
you know, there are TONS of ways to say 'ascended the throne' other than acceeded -- which no one even uses in normal historical language. I vote for using some of them!!! User:JHK
- oh, but then we couldn't cut'n'paste from genealogical lists! MichaelTinkler
the article says Conrad appeared as a candidate before the elelctoral assembly in "Kamba" in the Rhineland. I've never heard of a place called Kamba in the Rhineland. I'm sure it's a mistake, but where was the assembly? Hans Dimpel
- Kamba no longer exists, it was located near the current town of Oppenheim (am Rhein). (Source: Stefan Weinfurter, "Das Jahrhundert der Salier"), AD, Ottawa, 2006.
Holy Roman Emperor
Is it not incorrect to refer to Conrad II as 'Holy' Roman Emperor at this period? When I studied the high middle ages we would get heavily penalised for using Holy Roman instead of just Roman. The former title belongs to a much later part of medieval history.
- Well whoever penalised you was either Frederick Barbarosa or someone too concerned with details. In any case, the true Romans were the Byzantines, as is emphasized time again in most academic discussions. So in fact, any German emperor in the middle ages, late dark ages and rennaisance were Holy Roman emperors and definetly not Roman. Though, to some extent, the Germans settling in France and what have you did so under Western Roman Imperial decree.Tourskin 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course! The self-titulation `Holy Roman Emperor´ appeared first in the 12th century, so it is an anachronism to use it for Konrad II.! He was an elected `rex germanicus´ (`longobardicus et burgundicus´ as well), hence he claimed the title of `rex romanorum´ by travelling to Rome, where he got crowned by the pope. Naturally it was (back in those days) more a political problem to call himself `imperator romanorum´, since the claim of the byzantinians was an older, better founded one. The dyarchic understanding of the `porphyrogennitae´ (don´t beat me if I am wrong) in Konstantinopel was a completely different one to the granted emperorship of the papal Rome.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)