Talk:Holy Roman Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

formatting garbage?[edit]

The material following this first sentence is what i see at the top of this article:

{{Infobox Former Country |conventional_long_name = Holy Roman Empire |common_name = Holy Roman Empire |native_name = Sacrum Imperium Romanum Heiliges Römisches Reich |continent = Europe |region = Central Europe |era = Middle Ages Early modern period |status = Empire |government_type = Elective monarchy |life_span = 800/962[a]–1806 |year_start = 962 |year_end = 1806 |date_pre = 25 December 800 |event_pre = Charlemagne is crowned Emperor of the Romans[a] |date_start = 2 February |event_start = Otto I is crowned Emperor of the Romans |date_event1 = 2 February 1033 |event1 = Conrad II assumes crown of Burgundy |date_event2 = 25 September 1555 |event2 = Peace of Augsburg |date_event3 = 24 October 1648 |event3 = Peace of Westphalia |date_event4 = 2 December 1805 |event4 = Battle of Austerlitz |date_end = 6 August |event_end = Francis II abdicated |p1 = Kingdom of Germany |flag_p1 = No flag.svg |p2 = Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)#Constituent of the Carolingian Empire|Kingdom of Italy |flag_p2 = No flag.svg |s1 = Dutch Republic |flag_s1 = Statenvlag.svg |s2 = Old Swiss Confederacy |flag_s2 = Early Swiss cross.svg |s3 = Kingdom of Prussia |flag_s3 = Flag of the Kingdom of Prussia (1803-1892).svg |s4 = Austrian Empire |flag_s4 = Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy.svg |s5 = Confederation of the Rhine |flag_s5 = No flag.svg |image_flag = Banner of the Holy Roman Emperor with haloes (1400-1806).svg|border |flag = Flags of the Holy Roman Empire |flag_type = Imperial Banner |image_coat = Coat of Arms of Leopold II and Francis II, Holy Roman Emperors-Or shield variant.svg |symbol = Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire |symbol_type = Coat of arms |image_map = Holy Roman Empire ca.1600.svg |image_map_caption = The Holy Roman Empire around 1600, superimposed over current state borders |capital = No official capital, various imperial seats[b] |national_motto = |common_languages = Various[c] |religion = Catholic Church (until 1806) Lutheranism (1555–1806) Calvinism (1648–1806)

see details |currency = |demonym = |legislature = Imperial Diet |stat_pop1 = 5000000[2] |stat_year1 = 1200 |stat_pop2 = 16000000[3][4] |stat_year2 = 1500 |stat_pop3 = 21000000[5] |stat_year3 = 1618 |stat_pop4 = 16000000[5] |stat_year4 = 1648 |stat_pop5 = 26265000[6] |stat_year5= 1786 |leader1 = [[Jesus Christ |name="Jesus Christ"}} |leader2 = Jesus, Holy Roman Emperor Jesus (first) |leader3 = Francis II (last) |year_leader1 = 800–814 |year_leader2 = 962–973 |year_leader3 = 1792–1806 |title_leader = Emperor

|today =


I would like to discuss the definition of the Holy Roman Empire. In the past, definitions #1 through #9 have been used by this page:

  1. a political conglomeration of lands
  2. a political association of lands
  3. a mainly Central European conglomeration of lands
  4. a conglomeration of sub-states
  5. a union of territories
  6. a realm
  7. a varying complex of lands
  8. a complex political union of territories
  9. a multi-ethnic complex of territories
  10. a multinational agglomeration of territories

An edit I made earlier today changed the definition from #9 to #10. I changed the word multi-ethnic to multinational, because the empire was not defined along ethnic, or multi-ethnic, lines. Ethnicity doesn't seem to be relevant to its definition and therefore sounds out of place. Instead I used the word multinational, which I borrowed from the Czech version of this article. Changing the word "complex" to "agglomeration" was a rather arbitrary decision aided by Voltaire's quote at the bottom of this paragraph. (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see the development of the intro, here: Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire/Archive_5#Lede. The term complex comes from the cited source, EB. The term multi-ethnic also entered during this development. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I can now see why "complex" is preferable, but there is no justification for the term multi-ethnic. (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"Multi-ethnic complex" sounds like a Wikipedianism for "empire". I think the lead should begin "The Holy Roman Empire was a sovereign state in central Europe from the Middle Ages until its dissolution in 1806." Srnec (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

de italics[edit]

see User talk:Doremo#italics.3F.3F -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Map[edit]

While I am not opposed to a full extent map in the infobox, a map in German as the lead map on the English language page is of limited value. Further, this map does not show the context of current boundaries well, and some of it is apparently chopped off, further limiting the context. I agree with Srnec that the 1600 map is preferable. (There is further discussion of the infobox map in Archive 5.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It can be replaced with that other map which is much more detailed. Current borders have nothing to do with what was then perceived as an ethnicity nor with ethnic distribution back then, so I don't see a point, at all, in having current boundaries in that map. Why would you include it anyway when these were completely different times, and regions like Silesia, Lubusz, Pomerania (now in Poland) were not at all Polish but mostly German? This creates a false narrative "because HRE was partly in what is now Poland there were tons of Poles in Silesia". Plus, as I pointed out earlier that 1600 map has a problem with its frame (only upper and left part is framed). If you are going to replace it, at least insert a map with no damage and of a decent quality.Ernio48 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Current borders are helpful to give general readers an understanding of where the empire was in a context they are familiar with. This map appears to crop some of the borders off, as well as surrounding territories that provide context. And I'm not seeing any framing problems with the 1600 map. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I can provide a replacement in .svg format showing the greatest extent superimposed on today's borders. Would all editors be happy with such solution?Ernio48 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If it's good. Until then, the consensus map should be restored. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
HRE territorial peak, 1250
Proposed map is on the right. It is based on: and the map I provided from the Meyers Lexikon (currently in the infobox). Papacy is in purple as it was often in feud with the Holy Roman Emperor and somewhat independent, Venice is in green as it wasn't in the HRE but nevertheless maintained close ties, Kingdom of Sicily is in pale yellow as it was in personal union with the Holy Roman Emperor.Ernio48 (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am rather color blind, and I cannot discern some of the subtle color differences. Are Sicily and Italy the same color as the HRE here? Can you use colors that contrast a little better? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Corrected to orange. I think we should keep a warm color for both HRE and Sicily, indicating personal union between the two. Is it better now?Ernio48 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at that map.The provinces in the eastern part of Belgium, in 1250, weren't they possessions of the dukes of Burgundy, in theory a vassal of the king of France? And the huge County of Provence, wasn't it in the orbit of the Kingdom of France as well? Somehow, I don't see Marseille as having been part of the Holy Roman Empire.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)::
First off, I appreciate the comment. This map is not a detailed one and was based on a much more detailed one, see: You can verify these questions there.Ernio48 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The map should only show the Holy Roman Empire. Not Sicily, not Venice, not the Papal State. It requires an unnecessarily long caption and it isn't clear to the casual reader why they of all states are coloured. Especially when the underlying map has modern political boundaries on it. It's just not helpful. (I'd prefer the c.1600 map we had before to a multi-coloured partial map of Europe.)
Provence was definitely a part of the Empire at the time. Marseille was one of the cities to openly support Alfonso X's election. The Dukes of Burgundy had not yet acquired territory in the Low Countries in 1250. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
All that is explained in footnotes. Feel free to expand them where necessary. Historians tend to mention/connect/include all of these territories to/in the HRE on other maps I've come across. Definitions vary depending on historian (as seen in the Meyers Lexikon that included Kingdom of Sicily as part of HRE + some people challange the actual status of the Papal States and exclude it from the HRE + a number other disputes). HRE is a very complex and complicated topic and we as editors should not omit any version of what was actually HRE and what was not. Four mere colors on a map that give an overall overview is good minimizing already.Ernio48 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you feel about a single-colored map that includes the HRE proper and the Papal States only?Ernio48 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine. I don't mind showing the Papal State as part of the HRE under the Staufer. Srnec (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Provence (and Marseille) had been ruled by the Counts of Toulouse, then the Aragonese House of Barcelona from the early 12th cent., then passed to Charles of Anjou, Count of Anjou, youngest son of King Louis VIII of France, when he married the Barcelona heiress in 1246. By 1250, Provence had long ceased to have any link with the Holy Roman Empire.That map should reflect that.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Provence was divided in 1125. The counts of Toulouse came to govern the marquisate, while the House of Barcelona governed the county. (I'd have to check, but Marseille was a part of the county. I think it might have been a bone of contention between Barcelona and Toulouse and I can't say if it was ever under the rule of the counts of Toulouse or not.) Both houses were vassals, however autonomous in practice, of the Holy Roman Emperors. (You can see Frederick II enfeoffing Raymond VII with the marquisate of Provence here.) Imperial claims on the entire Kingdom of Arles essentially lapse with the death of Charles IV (1378), but it wasn't until the 1480s that Provence actually became a part of the Kingdom of France. In my opinion, it should be shown as part of the Empire until 1378. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


"The Holy Roman Empire at its greatest extent in the early to middle 13th century during the Hohenstaufen dynasty (1155–1268) superimposed on modern state borders"; but Kingdom of Sicily (Henry VI and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor) ? The map is misleading (greatest extent)-- (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It was concluded we won't include neither Kingdom of Sicily nor Venice on that map.Ernio48 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as Venice is concerned, if you look at an enlargment of the map, you will notice that Venice is not included. The mainland possessions of Venice c. 1200 (at least according to a map in Haverkamp's Medieval Germany 1056-1273) amounted to very little. They were limited to just a few narrow stretches of the coast. The infobox map do show those coastal stretches as outside the Empire. As for Sicily, Haverkamp's map does not show the K. of Sicily as belonging to the Empire. --Lubiesque (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This is misleading.. for example Sardinia and not kingdom of Sicily (Hohenstaufen dinasty)? Sorry but the selection criteria are not scientific (I do not seem encyclopedic); the previous map shows the territories belonging to the empire of the Houstaufen dynasty. I propose the map posted here
HRE territorial peak, 1250
for Hohenstaufen dinasty. -- (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Although ruled by the Staufer, Sicily was not a part of the Empire. On that pretty much everyone agrees, although it is true that the emperors claimed it from Charlemagne to Lothair III. The Staufer, however, had a strong and effectual claim as the heirs of Roger II, and to appease the Papacy (who also claimed suzerainty over Sicily) the Empire and Sicily were kept distinct. This isn't supposed to be a map of Staufer rule, but rather a map of the Holy Roman Empire at its greatest extent (in theory). Corsica and Sardinia were definitely part of the claim, and during the Staufer period there was some effort to assert the claim (i.e., crowning Barisone and Enzo as kings of Sardinia). Srnec (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not true; it is misleading. The most important historians on the Hohenstaufen dinasty declare that Sicily was part of the HRE with Henry VI and the union is perpetuated with Frederick II (obviously reassuring the pope, after his father's death) ... the so-called UNIO REGNI AD IMPERIUM is includes from Henry VI to Frederick II.
  • Wolfgang Stürner Friedrich II. (= Gestalten des Mittelalters und der Renaissance.). 2 Bände. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1992–2000; Der Kaiser 1220–1250.
  • Norbert Kamp, this is the article on Treccani federiciana (milestone on the study of the Hounstaufen) [1]
  • Peter Csendes, this is the article on Treccani federiciana [2]
  • Theo Kölzer: UNIO REGNI AD IMPERIUM (Treccani)[3] ; sorry...but your answers are totally misleading.-- (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It was not a real union, but a personal one. In the kingdom of Sicily, the Staufer did not rely on ancient rights (as they tried time and again down to Lothair III), but on the rights of the Norman kings (vassals of the popes). The administration of the empire and that of Sicily were separate. Frederick II continually assured the pope that he was not trying to create a real union (which would have abrogated the pope's rights). It's complicated, to be sure, but it is not what you say. See, e.g., Abulafia, Frederick II, pp. 136–7. Srnec (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This is misleading...the previous sources are a certainty on this (unio regni ad imperium) .... and Abulafia has its point of view on the nature of this union; Above all, Abulafia is not a historian of the Hohenstaufen (his work is not taken into consideration at all) I have cited fundamental and monumental works on the subject. This point is very clear even in the most critical studies towards Frederick II and father as: * Hubert Houben (historian) Kaiser Friedrich II. Kohlhammer, 2007 Stuttgart. Friedrich reassures the Pope to be able to be crowned emperor. Frederick II did not keep the short with the Pope; I do not renounce the Kingdom of Sicily. Union of Sicily in the HRE represents the maximum expansion by the empire under Hohenstaufen dinasty...yet, the agreement between the Pope and Frederick II was not official and was not signed by the German princes; in all this Sicily remained de facto and de jure part of the empire (from the union made by Henry). Other details... even the imperial chancery in this period is based in Palermo in the Kingdom of Sicily. Sorry, but the current map of the page is unbearable. Moreover, the motivation for Sardinia (without Sicily) is completely misleading -- (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sacrum Imperium"[edit]

The most important expression is missing so far: "Sacrum Imperium". This expression might have been first used by Rainald von Dassel (12th century), meaning "Holy Empire" in an universal and Christian sense. --16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


"Atlas of Europe in the Middle Ages", Ostrovski, Rome, 1998 Has no link, an extensive google search hasn't brought back answers, the only references seem to be from Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it either. Removed (and the info also). Srnec (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)