Talk:Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Conrad II)
Jump to: navigation, search


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

I wrote it, based on Ken Nygaard. He shows his sources at user:H.J.

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

To JHK and MichaelTinkler From A History of Germany, H.E. Marshall, London Hodder & Stoughton, 1913:

" 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

Conrad II[edit]

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[edit]

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)
I find "Holy Roman Emperor" always wrong. The empire has been called "Holy Roman". The emperor was just "of the Romans" or "Roman". The modern German terminology is "Römisch-deutsch" (Roman-German)which leaves no room for misunderstandings.--MacX85 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (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.-- (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Conrad II needs substantial editing[edit]

I edited this article to repair the grammar and sentence structure. (An example: Therefore, the burning of the palace should be excuse. Conrad reject their argument, however, saying that just as a ship remains after the death of its captain, the Empire remains after the death of the Emperor.) I think there are five paragraphs that should be deleted because they don't belong in this Conrad II article. I didn't want to delete five paragraphs without some discussion. I've marked my reasons for each deletion by bolding and italicizing them.

This history on the Salian dynasty is given in the article Salian dynasty, already referenced in the second sentence of the first paragraph. The Salian dynasty article could be added to the See Also section, if that first reference isn't enough. Covering all this Salian background again is not necessary.

Family background

The Salian dynasty has its origins with Count Werner V of Worms, a mid-level Frankish noble from Germany's Duchy of Franconia east of the Rhine River. His son, Conrad the Red, succeeded him as Count in 941 and King Otto I of Germany (the future Holy Roman Emperor) appointed him as Duke of Lorraine in 944. He was subsequently married to Liutgarde, one of Otto's daughters, in 947 and became one of the king's closest allies. The relationship was strained, however, when Otto refused to honor a peace treaty Conrad, as Otto's representative, had conducted with the rebellious Berengar II of Italy. Conrad also resented the growing influence of Otto's brother Henry I of Bavaria, which he saw as threatening his own power. In 953 Conrad joined the king's son Liudolf in rebellion against Otto, but the rebellion was defeated and Conrad was stripped of his duchy. Conrad and Otto were soon reconciled, with Conrad fighting for Otto in the great Battle of Lechfeld in 955. Though the Germans were successful in halting the Hungarian invasions of Europe, Conrad lost his life in the battle. Conrad was succeed as Count of Worms in 956 by his son Otto of Worms, a grandson of Otto I. Sometime between 965 and 970 Otto of Worms' oldest son, Henry of Speyer, was born. Little is known of his life as he died the age of 20 between 985 and 990.

This history on Otto II and Otto III is given in the articles Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor and Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor and doesn't specifically relate to Conrad II. The Otto articles could be added to the See Also section.

In 978 Emperor Otto II appointed his nephew Otto of Worms as Duke of Carinthia after deposing the rebellious Duke Henry I of Carinthia during the War of the Three Henries. Upon receiving the ducal title, however, Otto lost his position at Worms, which was given to Bishop Hildebald, Otto II's imperial chancellor. When Otto II died suddenly in 983, his infant son Otto III succeeded him, with his mother Theophanu serving as regent. Theophanu sought to reconcile the imperial house with Henry I, restoring him as Duke of Carinthia in 985, with Otto of Worms allowed to regain his ancestral position as Count of Worms. However, Otto was allowed to style himself "Duke of Worms" and his original territory was expanded so as not to diminish his rank. Otto of Worms remained loyal to the new Emperor, receiving rulership of the March of Verona in 955, though the actual Duchy of Carinthia passed to Henry IV of Bavaria. In 996, Otto III appointed Otto of Worms's son Bruno as Pope Gregory V. When Emperor Otto III died in 1002, both Otto of Worms, Conrad the Elder's grandfather, and Henry IV were candidates for election as King of Germany. In a compromise, Otto withdrew and received the Duchy of Carinthia from the newly elected Henry IV, who ruled as Henry II of Germany, in return. As a result, Otto of Worms renounced his holdings in Worms to Bishop Burchard of Worms, a long-time political rival. Buchard assumed care for Conrad, providing his education and upbringing by 1000.

The following paragraph either needs to be rewritten or deleted. I couldn't figure out what the author was trying to say. Conrad the Younger was placed in which Conrad's care? This paragraph should only be in this article if Conrad the Younger was placed in Conrad II's care. Anything else belongs in another article.

After the early death of his uncle Duke Conrad I of Carinthia, the elder Conrad's infant son, Conrad the Younger, was named Count of Worms by Emperor Henry II while the Duchy of Carinthia passed to Adalbero of Eppenstein due to Conrad the Younger's infancy. Conrad the Younger was placed in Conrad's care.

Most of the information in Relations with Eastern Europe, Bohemia has already been presented in the Relations with Poland, War with Mieszko and Treaty of Merseburg sections. The information in the first five sentences of Relations with Eastern Europe, Bohemia does not appear in Relations with Poland, War with Mieszko or Treaty of Merseburg, but I don't see its relevance. Most of the Mieszko II–Conrad II interactions are repeated, and shouldn't be. In the second paragraph below, there's only one sentence information that pertains to Conrad II: Bretislaus was then installed as the new Duke of Bohemia by Conrad. I think the whole section Bohemia should be deleted, and the subsequent section Hungary should be retitled Relations with Hungary. The Duchy of Bohemia article could be added to See Also.

Relations with Eastern Europe


The Duchy of Bohemia was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire in 1004 during the German-Polish Wars (1002-1018). Emperor Henry II installed Jaromir as Duke of Bohemia and promised protection against Polish aggression in return for incorporation. Jaromir ruled only a smaller territory, as Poland occupied the traditional Czech territories of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia. In 1012, Jaromir was deposed by his brother Oldrich, who assumed the Bohemian throne for himself. Following the resumption of hostilities between the Empire and Poland in 1028, Oldrich went on the offensive against Poland, reconquering Moravia by 1029, which helped to stabilize his duchy. The war ended in 1031 when Polish King Mieszko II surrendered to Conrad II. In the civil war which followed, Meiszko fled Poland for Bohemia, where Oldrich had him imprisoned and castrated in revenge for the torture Meiszko's father, Bolesław I of Poland, inflicted upon Duke Boleslaus III, Oldrich's brother, thirty years before.

Poland was unable to stabilize in the wake of Mieszko's exile, forcing Conrad to convene an assembly in July 1033 to issue the Treaty of Merseburg which restored Meiszko to the Polish throne. Conrad summoned Oldrich to appear to the assembly, but Oldrich refused. His absence raised the ire of the Emperor and Conrad, busy with securing his succession to the Burgundy throne, charged his son Duke Henry of Bavaria with punishing the recalcitrant Bohemian. At age 17, Henry's march on Bohemia was his first independent military command. The expedition was complete success, with Henry deposing Oldrich and restoring his brother Jaromir to the Bohemian throne, with Oldrich's son Bretislaus I appointed as Count of Morovia. Oldrich was imprisoned in Bavaria but by 1034 was pardoned and allowed to return to Bohemia. Oldrich deposed and blinded Jaromir, reclaimed the Bohemian throne, and exiled his son. While the reason for the conflict between father and son has been lost, it is believed Bretislaus supported Jaromir over his father. Oldrich died suddenly on November 9, 1034, allowing Bretislaus to return from exile. Though Jaromir was offered the throne, he declined in favor of his nephew. Bretislaus was then installed as the new Duke of Bohemia by Conrad.

So, is it OK to delete these paragraphs? Ninanta (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)