Talk:Holy Roman Empire

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)

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)

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)

== 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)

First Reich

First Reich is a redirect to this article. I'm not sure if that's accurate, and in any case, it should be explained in the article itself. patsw (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First Reich certainly refers to the Holy Roman Empire. The term ought to be explained, though. john k (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First Reich? Second Reich? "The Third Reich as a continuation of the German (Prussian) Empire": A very historically problematic statement placed at the beginning of the article.

"It is also termed the German First Reich. It is sometimes called the Second Reich, while the First Reich would be the Roman Empire and the Third Reich would be the continuation of the German (Prussian) Empire."

This is an extremely problematic statement to make, not only linking the German Empire with the Third Reich, but because most historians would not characterize the Holy Roman Empire as the Second Reich, just to do so. There isn't enough continuity, scholarly opinion and or approval to warrant this statement, as Austria played a crucial role in the affairs of these eras, and after World War I, for example, there was not a direct transition from any Emperor (Austrian or German) to the Third Reich. Mweinshel (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We should not be adding unattributed controversial views. Go ahead and remove it! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem in translating reich, isn't there? It does not necessarily mean an amalgamation of lands under a single monarch, an emperor. It might simply mean a kingdom, as in Frankreich- kingdom of the French, or just a 'state', as it is used to describe Germany even today.So for the Teutonic peoples to describe their lands as 'The Reich' does not necessarily demonstrate any pretension to continuity with the Roman Empire.I think the terms 'First Reich', 'Second Reich' are pretty much inventions of English-speaking historians?Gazzster (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite.

You are correct that "reich" doesn't mean monarchy. German Reich remained the state's name even after the end of the monarchies in 1918. Where you got the idea that the term "is used to describe Germany even today" I don't know. It's not true!

The term is also ambiguous in regard to whether a Kingdom or an Empire is meant, which ties in with the character of the German Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire, especially after the latter came to be restricted to the former. (Also, consider the common misidentification (even in WP) of the German Reichskrone, now kept at Vienna, as an "imperial crown", when it was actually only the royal crown, a permanent Imperial crown not existing.)

The word "Reich" came to mean the superstructure encompassing all the principalities, cities etc. (and it also had a metaphysical connotation). The HRE ended in 1806 and was restored in 1814 only as a loose federation - still in the wake of nationalism, Germans wanded a unified nation state too and they looked towards the HRE as their previous nation state. Hence, the call for a restoration of the "Reich". This was achieved under Prussian leadership in 1871. The Kaiserreichs symbolism often referred back to the HRE, with the German Emperor being depicted with a modernised version of the Reichskrone.

Despite the state still being called "Reich", the changes of 1918 - linked as they were with Germany's defeat - were considered by many to be the end of the second German Reich and looked towards a restoration of "German power and glory" in a third Reich. The Nazis were only one possible version of such a restored, third Reich but they came to power and appropriated the term to their regime.

To cut a long story short: the terms "First" and "Second" Reich - as undoubtedly as they refer to the HRE and the Kaiserreich, respectively, only make sense in reference to a "Third" Reich, which can either be the one hoped for by some in the 1920s or the one that actually came in 1933.

Deposuit (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Reich= realm

reich= rich

Frankreich (France) = realm of the franks

Österreich (Austria)= eastern realm

Königreich (kingdom)= realm governed by a king

Kaiserreich = realm governed by a emperor

You cant simply say Reich = empire

No, then you really should tell everyone who speaks German about this. They may want to know. --Jayron32 02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reich, in German, doesn't mean Empire. It is better translated as Realm. But it just mostly isn't.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The territory or government of a German state, as the Holy Roman Empire, or First Reich, from 962 to 1806; the German Empire, or Second Reich, from 1871 to 1919; the Weimar Republic, from 1919 to 1933; or the Third Reich, from 1933 to 1945.

---

[German, empire, realm, from Middle High German rīch, rīche, from Old High German rīhhi; see reg- in Indo-European roots.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2014 (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)

"...was a realm (Reich)"

To say in the lead that the HRE "was a realm (Reich)" strikes me as very odd. However it decayed, it was an Empire, with an Emperor and all kinds of imperial trappings. In English, in the late middle ages and the early modern period, the HRE was commonly called "the Empire" - that is, it was the only one then in town. The use in German of the less specific word Reich surely does not change what the HRE was into something less than an Empire? Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. An empire can usually also be described as a realm. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Realm/Reich makes perfect sense. German uses the word "reich" to rescribe all kinds of states; an empire is formally a "Kaiserreich" and a kingdom is a "Königsreich" and France is "Frankreich". Its a very generalized term in this context. The german name for the Holy Roman Empire was actually "Heiliges Römisches Reich". --Jayron32 03:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "realm" is that it is a quaint outdated (not to say pedantic) word reserved to the poetic and literary répertoire. My Grand Robert English-French dictionary translates Realm as "literary = kingdom Royaume ("the realm of England"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (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)

Merger proposal

I propose merging this article into here, as it is a fork of the Holy Roman Empire article. Mootros (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The kingdom of Germany existed before the Holy Roman Empire and did not include Italy or Burgundy, which were parts of the Empire outside Germany. The history of the Empire is mind-bogglingly complicated (far more so than that of the United Kingdom, for instance), and if these two are combined it will not bring simplicity where there is none. On a separate issue, both the Kingdom of Germany and the HRE (which are not the same thing) are surely notable in their own right. Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It made more sense merge with the East Francia article.-Ilhador- (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Some parts might well have to be moved into the East Francia article. See here: Talk:East_Francia#Merger proposal Thanks. Mootros (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I support the merging of the Kingdom of Germany article with East Francia. They constitute the predecessor state of the Holy Roman Empire, not the empire itself. This is also the course of action the editors of the German Wikipedia [4] have taken.--Xuxalliope (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that mergeing is not any answer to this. In my opinion the "mind-boggling complexity is best dealt with by means of shorter articles referring to other articles in a "modular" manner. There is a great deal of duplication across the many articles here dealing with European history during the period, say, 800 - 1800, and this makes it onerous to make any improvements to them as and changes are not easily reflected across them all. Central articles, such as this one, should imo have their larger sections reduced into summaries and the main substance off them split off into separate articles. Today I have been trying to drill down into the "central" confusions raised by, what seems to me to be, the propagandist spin of the time. The provenance, distinctions, and purposes of the labels: Roman Empire, Holy Empire, and Holy Roman Empire need to be set out in order to disconnect them from the Roman Empire and link them befittingly to the German monarchy. Questions such as who were the first emperors of which of these manifestations of the neo-Roman Empire - Charlemagne, Otto I, Lothair 1, etc, can then be appropriately tied-in and addressed in their respective articles. LookingGlass (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be absurd to merge the two articles, unless of course the proposer believes there should just be one article in Wikipedia for the History of Western Europe. Would that cover it? Where did this one-size-fits-all mentality originate from? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2014 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1789

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)

"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)

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)

Lede

"Holy Roman Empire, German Heiliges Römisches Reich, Latin Sacrum Romanum Imperium, the varying complex of lands in western and central Europe ruled over first by Frankish and then by German kings for 10 centuries, from Charlemagne’s coronation in 800 until the renunciation of the imperial title in 1806." → Encyclopedia Britannica [5]

versus

"The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic and complex union of territories in Central Europe existing from 962 to 1806. It was ruled by an emperor who was elected by powerful princes." → Wikipedia

Can you notice the differences? --IIIraute (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately it's not an improvement. "Complex" is used in the Britannica version, appropriately, as a a noun. In the 2nd version, it has become an adjective, expressing someone's opinion about the empire, and the same is true of the word "powerful": electors were relatively powerful within the Empire, certainly, but not always relative to nations outside the Empire -- particularly the ecclesiastic princes. FactStraight (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Worse, they don't even agree on when the Empire existed! The Britannica version is correct and better all around. I agree with FactStraight about the poor word choices in our version. The lede gets no better as you move beyond its first sentence: "Century by century the Emperor lost power. . ." Srnec (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Months ago I revamped the intro using EB and a couple of other sources as a guide, an effort I saw as a starting point, not a resolution. That version has been much rearranged since, including the addition of phrases such as "century by century," reinforcing the muddle. The description of the entity - "complex", "political union", "empire", etc. - is one difficulty, but the key issue remains the starting date problem, which draws in ever more distinctions and conflicting statements. We can discuss that point endlessly, but what is needed is some excellent sources discussing the issue head on. I would propose that a draft version of the lede be developed here, rather than the piecemeal changes that have plagued the version in the article. Unfortunately, I am currently swamped with work on other projects, and I am removed for the time being from access to the sort of research library necessary to identify and work with such sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree - I already did a couple of changes to the first paragraph of the lede, but did not touch the more complex issues. A draft version sounds like a good idea. --IIIraute (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the start date ought to be the more traditional date of 800? Srnec (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to see better sources discussing this issue. Note 5 of the article, citing EB, states, "Charlemagne and his successors assumed variations of the title emperor, but none termed themselves Roman emperor until Otto II in 983." Thus EB ostensibly generates a conflict within itself, making it a shaky source on its own. Gascoigne, the (so-so) source from note 6, states, "The imperial role accorded by the pope to Charlemagne in 800 is handed on in increasingly desultory fashion during the 9th century. From 924 it falls into abeyance.... The coronation of Otto I by pope John XII in 962 marks a revival of the concept of a Christian emperor in the west ... [and] an unbroken line of Holy Roman emperors lasting for more than eight centuries" ensues (a claim disputed above). The date of 800 also suggests that the Carolingian Empire becomes the HRE or becomes co-existent with it, or at any rate raises questions regarding the transition. This is why I went with the 962 date in my rewrite and tried to explain that discrepancy, but obviously that has been disputed as well. So ... a solid source discussing this with authority is much needed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So here are three reliable sources that place the start of the Holy Roman Empire at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. Other encyclopedias, including Encyclopedia Britannica, agree with this start. The year 800 should be qualified by a description of the historical development of the empire, but presenting a tenth century start is misleading and contradicts a century of established scholarship. Bede735 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bryce, James (1913). The Holy Roman Empire. London: The MacMillan Company. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-1479208524.
• Heer, Friedrich (1967). The Holy Roman Empire. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. pp. 1–8. ISBN 978-0297176725.
• Wilson, Dereck (2006). Charlemagne. New York: Doubleday. p. 14. ISBN 978-0385516709.

As I noted above, EB further states that no one used the term Roman emperor until Otto II, so its conclusive statement of a starting date is questionable. Bryce states 800 as a starting date but notes that the date is imprecise and requires elaboration, advising one "to speak less of events than of principles," and emphasizing the evolution of an institution as opposed to a discrete starting point of a State. Wilson notes that Charlemagne forged a bond "that was to form the basis of what became the Holy Roman Empire," in contrast to saying he formed the HRE itself. I'm not advocating for any particular view; I would like to see a discussion of the issue rather than a flat conclusion. But such a discussion would best be founded in a source discussing the issue directly, rather than a stated conclusion derived from various fragments. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The correct answer to the question is: Don't draw conclusions for the reader. Explain the historiographical context; explain the complex evolution of the HRE and don't rely on trite and inaccurate statements which state it was definitively founded on a Tuesday afternoon at 3:47 PM in the year 800. Or 962. Or any other year. Instead, explain how historians view the gradual evolution of the central European polity from the Frankish empire to the HRE as it came to be known. The lede does an OK job of this now, the only problematic sentence I see is the one that says "Although Charlemagne was the first to bear the title and the agglomeration grew out of his empire, Otto I is generally regarded as the founder and the date of his coronation as the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire." If we cut that out, I think we'd be fine. --Jayron32 01:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

At Laszlo Panaflex, Please review WP:OR. You should be making editorial decisions based on reliable sources, and not your subjective interpretation of reliable sources. You are defining the start of the empire based on when emperors used a particular title. Bryce's approach is correct. First he identifies the beginning of the empire:

"Strictly speaking, it is from the year 800 A.D., when a King of the Franks was crowned Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III, that the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire must be dated."

Then he qualifies that statement and provides context. Heer, Wilson, and the Encyclopedia Britannica take the same approach. Unless you can cite reliable sources that place the beginning of the empire in the tenth century, you should self revert your last edit and add the appropriate qualifying statements using reliable sources—statements readily available in Bryce, Heer, Wilson, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Bede735 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted until a consensus is reached on the talk page. --IIIraute (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bede735: As I noted above, Bryce makes the flat statement of a starting date then qualifies that date heavily, while Wilson doesn't support the date 800 at all. Expanding to further sources, Cantor states that the "creation of the German monarchy was the work of Otto I the Great (936-973)" and that it was not until Otto III when a "renewal of the Roman Empire" was discussed at the German court (pp.212,215). Norman Davies (A History of Europe, 1996) supports the existing Gascoigne source, noting that after the coronation of Otto I in 962 the Empire "was destined to have a continuous existence until its destruction by Napoleon" and that he "ruled a creature which would grow into the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (pp.316-317). Davies then directly expresses the begin date of the HRE as 962 in his list of monarchs (p.1246).

As Jayron32 notes above, placing a date certain as a starting date for the HRE is an artificial enterprise to begin with, and all good sources are careful to describe an evolution rather than a single beginning point, and we should follow that paradigm. It is also clear that there is no consensus here for a single date certain, nor is there one in the sources because there simply was not one. Charlemagne's empire disintegrated after he died; the term emperor ended up as a title for sale and fell into abeyance completely in the 920s; Otto I claimed to be the successor of Charlemagne, but the term Roman Emperor was not applied until the late 10th century; the name HRE was not used until much later still. So we are left with a battle of the sources, and as Jayron32 states, the solution in that case is to describe the controversy for readers to evaluate. Further, the only true impetus to name a particular date is the construct of the wiki infobox, a supremely artificial necessity that strips away context in a futile and unnecessary attempt at discrete certainty. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1

The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in central Europe that began with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day in 800,^{(Bryce, p. 3.)} was renewed and formalized with the coronation of Otto I as Holy Roman Emperor in 962,^{(Bryce, p. 80.)} and ended when Francis II dissolved the imperial title in 1806.^{(Bryce, p. 366)} Bede735 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong in all the wrong ways. It makes definitive statements where the preponderance of scholarship hedges. It evolved from the Carolingian empire, it did not begin on that date. Scholarship hedges because it doesn't begin and isn't "formalized" at one date. It evolves slowly over time. --Jayron32 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• The lead as it stands now is, I think, fine. Everyone who has something to say about it acknowledges that the Holy Roman Empire is a complex entity. I would only suggest that the HRE was not only a polity, it was a concept as well. The original idea was that it was the revival of the Western Roman Empire. A conceptual link between Charlemagne, Otto I, and the last Emperor of the West was made. The title was attached to a person, rather than a state. The revived Emperor was considered the lord of all Christians, just as the Pope was considered spiritual lord. The German emperors were also considered titular heads of all Christian Europe. So let's remember that when we talk about the Empire we're talking about an idea of the unity of Europe, that was real for western societies for much of the Middle Ages.Gazzster (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

We appear to have some consensus that the lede should not choose a date certain, but the current version does so, favoring 962. My draft softens that language in the opening sentence and emphasizes the development/evolution of the HRE in the discussion of origins in the second paragraph. I've worked directly from the sources as much as possible, adding a couple of cites and links, while removing a dead link and a cite I could not verify (Kagan).

Further, the current structure of the lede seems to me to meander without logic. Here is a rough outline:

I a. Definition

b. Location

c. Institutions - emperor, electors, Pope

II Origins - Charlemagne, Otto

III a. Evaluation - decentralized, ltd power

b. Dissolution

The discussion of institutions would be better placed with the evaluation. My draft leaves the opening paragraph a bit thin, but the topics addressed flow more logically. Lastly, the final sentence on the dissolution could be separated into a final paragraph and expanded to outline the trajectory of the empire, but I am not undertaking that in this draft.

• Your draft is good. It addresses the important points discussed above. Bede735 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. --IIIraute (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Good stuff. Dig it. --Jayron32 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2 draft

The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in central Europe that developed during the middle ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806. The core and largest territory of the empire was the Kingdom of Germany, though the varying lands of the empire included at times the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Bohemia, and the Kingdom of Burgundy, as well as numerous other outliers. The empire grew out of East Francia, a primary division of the Frankish Empire. Pope Leo III crowned Frankish king Charlemagne as emperor in 800, restoring the title in the West after more than three centuries. After Charlemagne died, the title passed in a desultory manner during the decline and fragmentation of the Carolingian dynasty, eventually falling into abeyance. The title was revived in 962 when Otto I was crowned emperor, fashioning himself as the successor of Charlemagne and beginning a continuous existence of the empire for over eight centuries. Some historians refer to the coronation of Charlemagne as the origin of the empire, while others prefer the coronation of Otto I as its beginning. Scholars generally concur, however, in relating an evolution of the institutions and principles comprising the empire, describing a gradual assumption of the imperial title and role. The precise term Holy Roman Empire was not used until the 13th century, but the doctrine of translatio imperii ("transfer of rule") was fundamental to the prestige of the emperor, the notion that he held supreme power inherited from the emperors of Rome. The office of Holy Roman Emperor was traditionally elective, although frequently controlled by dynasties. The German prince-electors, the highest ranking noblemen of the empire, usually elected one of their peers as "King of the Romans", and he would later be crowned emperor by the Pope; the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century. The empire never achieved the extent of political unification formed in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units, principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains. The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, and kings of the empire were vassals and subjects who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto sovereignty within their territories. Emperor Francis II dissolved the empire in August 1806 after its defeat by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. References

Location

The sentence regarding the extent of the empire cites two sources. Only the abstract of the Taagepera is available on-line, and the article appears to focus on Russia. The lecture notes are from a small college, and I cannot find the passage supportive of this sentence. Existing sources Bryce, Johnson, and Whaley have detailed passages on the extent that are supportive of the current language. I have revised the draft to elaborate slightly, and to add these better sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"... the varying lands of the empire ..." - maybe we can find a better formulation. --IIIraute (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The word 'varying' I took from EB, but direct links to the three sources are included, so perhaps others looking over those descriptions may improve upon this. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

...or maybe even drop that part: "... though the empire included at times the Kingdom of Italy ..." for example? ...or exchange "lands" for "extent". The core lands of the empire did not "vary". --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that works well. I've removed that phrasing. I also replaced "outliers" with "territories." Felt a bit awkward. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Holy Roman Empire (geographical name), 'Definition of HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE': "realm of varying extent in cen Europe in medieval & modern periods with Germany as chief component"[6] --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you - that's fine with me. Alternative solution: "The core and largest territory of the empire was the Kingdom of Germany, though its varying extent included at times the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Bohemia, and the Kingdom of Burgundy, as well as numerous other territories." I am happy with both versions. --IIIraute (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to again suggest that the concept of the Empire, ie., as a continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, is essential to an understanding of the origin of the medieval Empire, and needs to be referenced in the lede.Gazzster (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Consistent with the discussion above and resulting consensus, the infobox should remain with a start date of 962. From that point forward there is an existing entity, whereas that cannot be said for 800 thru 962. The IP user(s) making that change probably won't be monitoring this discussion, but that is the policy I am following in reverting their changes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire

I'm not the best person to talk about history, but I am very confused why there was both a Roman Empire and a Holy Roman Empire. Well my guess is that since Rome was a city thriving with Christianity, so it was their main focus, making a 'Holy Roman' Empire. But some people say Austria was also a Holy Roman Empire, and I don't fully deny that claim.

98.250.29.24 (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Anonymous

They are two different, and distinct, things. The Holy Roman Empire (what this article is about) refers to the central European polity which coincided roughly with Germany, and at times parts of Italy, Burgundy, Bohemia, etc. Other than the name itself, it has no direct connection to the prior Roman Empire, which of course still existed along side the Holy Roman Empire for many years. Given the name, it is easy to confuse the two different states, but they are distinct from each other. The reason the Holy Roman Empire has "roman" in the name, despite not actually deriving directly from the prior Roman Empire of the Caesars and all that, is complex, but boils down to a concept known as Translatio imperii, whereby the German King was granted the Imperial title by the Pope (acting as the Bishop of Rome and heir to the Roman Pontifex Maximus). The Holy Roman Empire was not the first attempt to re-establish the Western Empire after its fall in 476 AD (see the earlier Carolingian Empire for example) but it was the longest lasting. --Jayron32 06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Map Overload

@User:‎Elevatorrailfan: As I have noted in edit descriptions, there are already a total of 18 maps on this article, including the nine maps in the gif. There are already two maps of the empire in 1789, including one that is much better detailed than the one being added to the infobox. There is already a map in the infobox, and on top of all that, you insist on putting your map first, out of chronological order. Tell me, why does the page need another map, of lower quality than those already there? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I added that map was because it was a simplified map of the Holy Roman Empire with the borders within the Holy Roman Empire and the borders of the other countries in Europe in 1789.

Elevatorrailfan (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This map already shows the empire in 1789, with the borders of other countries and with the territories labelled. It is better quality and is placed in context. The infobox already has a map of the empire at its greatest extent. So you are putting a lower quality map of the empire just before it ended at the very top. It is unneeded and out of place in the infobox. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Laszlo on this one, I don't think either map belongs in the infobox but I particularly don't see the point of the 1789 map (what's special about 1789?). Also, the caption for that map makes no sense ("outwith" is not an English word).