This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I would propose moving this article to Regnum Italicum, which is the contemporary name for the medieval Italian kingdom limited to the north of the peninsula. It removes the need for the parenthesis. Srnec 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The parenthetic remark is the standard Wikipedia method for disambiguating common names used to refer to multiple subjects. Compromising other Wikipedia conventions, particularly WP:NC(CN), in order to eliminate parenthesis is a weak argument for a move. Designating this particular Kingdom of Italy as "the medieval one" with the (Medieval) disambiguation effectively specifies two things: 1) the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article is Kingdom of Italy. 2) there are other subjects whose most common name is Kingdom of Italy. Finally "Regnum Italicum" fails the google test by an order of magnitude.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,830 for "Regnum Italicum"
Results 1 - 10 of about 29,900 for "Kingdom of Italy" medieval.
I have no argument with changing Medieval to medieval. --Serge 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Forget Google; "Regnum Italicum" violates both WP:UE and WP:NOR. Just change Medieval to medieval. - AjaxSmack 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons cited. Lowercase "m" would be OK. --SigPig 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The request failed. --Dijxtra 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is ridiculously inaccurate. First, it contradicts itself regarding the beginning of this state, giving both 839 and 855 as start dates. But neither date works. The kingdom was founded in 568 by the Lombards when the began the conquest of Italy. The state was conquered by the Franks in 774, but otherwise it continued to exist for centuries and then nominally until the end of the HRE in 1806. The statement about an "independent state" is funny: it was always independent of everything but the imperial authority after the year 800, just like every other kingdom in Western Europe at the time. Italy was ruled as a distinct realm from 568 until the High Middle Ages, when the rise of the city-states broke the power of the feudal class and the kingdom ceased to exist as a real political unit, though the powers of the rex Italiae continued to be exercised and coronation were still held for the emperors-elect. In short, I don't know what this page is referring to. It covers a kingdom which is not really distinct from the Lombard one as if it were. Srnec 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are exaggerating the extent of inaccuracy, although I agree that there is some confusion regarding the dates of Louis' ascendency. You also seem to be completely ignoring Carolinian dominance of the northern Lombards after Charlemagne's conquest of Northern Italy. Yes, "it continued to exist for centuries" after Frankish conquest, as a province of Charlemagne's empire, and later as part of the HRE. After the Carolinian conquest it was no longer a Lombard kingdom, it became a Frankish one. How many articles are there in Wikipedia titled "Kingdom of Italy"? Four? Six? You are confusing the region of Italy with the succession of governments that ruled there. I have no idea what you mean by "it was always independent of everything but the imperial authority after the year 800, just like every other kingdom in Western Europe at the time"; what exactly is your argument? I thought you were saying that it was already independent before the dates given, yet with this statement you are saying that it wasn't. The west of what is now France and the Iberian Peninsula were not within the suzerainty of the HRE at the time, so your statement equally doesn't apply to those regions. The Italy referenced in this article is not the same territory as the modern state of Italy, so what "distinct realm" are you referring to? The extent of the Lombard Kingdom of Italy was not the same as the Carolinian Kingdom, or that of the Ostrogothic Kingdom that pre-existed the Lombards, or to the petty Lombard kingdoms in the south of the peninsula that co-existed with the subject of this article. The extent of the kingdom even changes within the course of events depicted in this article, so not even the material in contention is dealing with a "distinct realm".
This article is indeed inaccurate. It depicts an entity that in low middle ages and renaissance did never exist. I suggest to rewrite it from scratch, making clearer that if such entity ever existed it was only an official title helded by holy roman emperors, while actually italy experienced in this time mediaval comuni and dinastie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The Italy we are concerned with here was a province of Lothar's empire; due to the tradition of partible inheritance the empire was subdivided after his death, with Italy going to Louis who was already installed there. Louis left no heirs, and as was the tendency in the early HRE the stronger of the other two gained control and used it as leverage to dominate most of Lothar's former dominion (a gross oversimplification, but I trust you get the point). On Lothar's death, the independent medieval Kingdom of Italy began, later to be reincorporated into the HRE but with new recognition as a separate principality instead of just an extension of the Emperor's demesne, as it would continue to be regarded until the reorganization of the Italian Peninsula as the modern Kingdom of Italy.
I think the date confusion is due to lack of clarity. Louis was already King of Italy (then a vassal state) in 839 before the death of Lothar (he wasn't crowned until 844, so take your pick on the date), but only after Lothar's death in 855 did the Kingdom of Italy (under Louis) become an autonomous entity, to be eventually reabsorbed by the HRE after Louis' death and years of contention for the crown with no recognizable legitimate successors.
This could use a rewrite. I think the dispute banner needs to be replaced with one demanding clarification. 22.214.171.124 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There was a kingdom of Italy from 476. Its existence was interrupted more than once before the Lombards succeeded in establishing a lasting kingdom in 568. That kingdom lasted until 1806 without interruption. That is why this article is confused. The Franks conquered the Lombards in 774, but the regnum Italicum continued to exist. Only with the innovations of Carolingian imperium does the Italian kingdom come to be seen as a state within a state, namely, the Empire. It remained a state within the Empire until 1806, though, like all countries, its geography was altered more than once during that long period. Just because Italy had closer ties to the countries beyond the Alps when its ruler ruled transalpine lands, it does not follow that Italy only "became" and "independent ... Kingdom" after Lothair's death. It was a separate kingdom and independent from the other regna of the Empire from 774 on. The Lombard, Frankish, and post-Frankish Italies are the same political entity. Srnec 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Is what this article, or atleast the Lombard info should be called. These are not "Kings of Italy", they're "Kings of the Lombards". Take for example Alboin, Britannica has him located at "Alboin (king of Lombardy)". This well researched map on the Historical states of Italy calls it the "Kingdom of Lombardy". In the letters from Popes they were addressed as "Kings of Lombardy", as this source attests. - Gennarous (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The Kingdom of the Lombards → Regnum Italiae — This page is about the medieval entity known as the "Kingdom of Italy". Since "Kingdom of Italy (medieval)" is clumsy, "Regnum Italicum" is uncommon and rejected (see previous request), and the Italian and Spanish Wikis both use a Latin form in their titles, I propose moving the article to Regnum Italiae. User:Gennarous has been moving this page to inappropriate titles several times now and redirecting the other titles so that only an admin can revert him, thus necessitating this stupid requested move. If you don't know anything about the scholarly literature, please note that Chris Wickham uses "Kingdom of Italy" to refer to the Lombard kingdom in his Early Medieval Italy (the authoritative English general study of the period) and the Britannica reads "the regnum Langobardorum (“kingdom of the Lombards”) of the Lombard period was called the regnum Italiae (“kingdom of Italy”) from the 9th century onward". —Srnec (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This move requested was opened in order to prevent a full out edit war between myself and User:Gennarous, who moved the page from Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy, an innapropriate title because it is uncommonly used and it does not correspond to the scope of the article, and after I reverted him twice to The Kingdom of the Lombards. He redirected both the former article titles, including Regnum Italiae, which was my attempt at compromise, so that only an adminstrator could move them back. This necessitated a move request. I simply chose the previous title, but the original title is fine with me. The current title is wrong in form (per MoS) and in fact (the article is not about the Kingdom of the Lombards only). When an admin finally closes this, s/he should move the article to "Kingdom of Italy (medieval)" or to the requested domain in the unlikely event that the move request passes. Keeping the article here is not acceptable and does not have consensus.Srnec (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Revert to Kingdom of Italy (medieval). Kingdom of the Lombards is too narrow a title. And while I certainly appreciate a good Latin name, I think the English title works well in this instance. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (and Kafka is correct; this article has much wider scope than the Kingdom of the Lombards; Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is about right). There are two problems with the proposal: it's not English, and it's ambiguous (it would be valid in discussing Vergil and the Saturnian Age (it's from Aeneid 4.106 or 275), the Ostrogoths, or the 1860-1946 Kingdom of Italy). Either would be fatal. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course Kafka is correct, that was my rationale for the move. I don't care where this gets moved to, though I don't see a big problem with the Latin (why does the Italian Wiki use it?). We Ostrogothic Kingdom, Kingdom of the Lombards, and the later Italian kingdoms (Napoleonic, Risorgimento), but we don't have a name for the Lombardo-Frankish entity that lasted from the eighth century to the end of the Middle Ages and probably in theory until the Peace of Westphalia. "Kingdom of Italy (medieval)" is less ambiguous than "Regnum Italiae" (though in practice probably not). I just think it is clumsy and weird. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't set Italian Wiki policy; but Latin will be trivially intelligible to Italians where it is not to anglophones. We should avoid it, unless English has adopted the phrase. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
this is not the Italian language wikipedia
English is not a romance language
Latin is not taught as a subject in English-language highschools in the English-speaking world anymore, for the most part
Latin is a dead language
This is the English Wikipedia
Roma is spelt Rome, Torino is spelt Turin, etc. in English, since this is neither the Latin nor the Italian Wikipedia.
Oppose I am not against using a Latin term, as long as an Emglish term does not exist or is too obscure. This is hardly the case here. Both "Kingdom of Italy" and "Kingdom of the Lombards" seem more widely used. Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Revert to Kingdom of Italy (medieval). The article in question refers not just to the kingdom of the Lombards, but also to the Kingdom of Italy which existed for another thousand years AFTER the Lombards were gone. Kingdom of Italy (medieval) works fine, and can apply to both kingdoms, while Lombard only refers to one.Rcduggan (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Revert. Although I appreciate Srnec's work and creativity, and although I like Regnum Italiae, I have to agree that reverting to Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is the best name for this article in terms of balancing the various WP naming conventions (neutrality, common name, use English, unambiguous, etc.). Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
My problem with that is that the distinction is arbitrary. Even in the late Middle Ages the crown the emperors used as kings of Italy was the Iron Crown and Charlemagne adopted, initially, the Lombard title. We do need a separate article for the Lombard kingdom, but simply dividing it off of this article seems unwise. Better to keep a short section with a main article hatnote. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not importantly arbitrary. The Lombard crown was united with the Frankish/Imperial crown during the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis, the Italian crown was split off afterwards. The divide between them must be in that period. But writing a separate article and making this section into a summary will get us much the same place. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I may have oversimplified. But did they wear the Iron Crown? Did they govern by Lombard law? If not, why not call them Kings of Italy, as we do? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that any dividing line between Lombard/medieval is arbitrary and therefore I am opposed to separating them completely, but subarticles are fine. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sources for calling the Lombard kingdom a "Kingdom of Italy"
Giovanni Tabacco (1989), The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy, Chris Wickham (1990), Early Medieval Italy, and Jan Hallenbeck (1982), Pavia and Rome, call the Lombard kingdom a "Kingdom of Italy". Srnec (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The name "Kingdom of Italy" is widely employed by historians but never existed. The only historical name was "Kingdom of Lombards" --Little bishop (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Was the Kingdom of Sicily and/or Naples considered to be legally outside the Kingdom of Italy and/or the Holy Roman Empire, even when the Kings of Sicily and/or Naples were also Holy Roman Emperors (e.g., Frederick II, Charles V)? --Jfruh (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was, as seen by the use of the double titulature King of Sicily and Italy by Frederick II. The kingdom of Sicily was also not administrated within the Empire - there may have been exceptions for the parts that recognized Carolingian suzerainety at some point (Capua, Benevento and Salerno IIRC). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (user Snapdragonfly on an ip)
I'm not sure that the map (which appears to be in Italian) is really accurate. It's true that the area in blue was ruled by the Lombards; but my understanding is that the Duchies of Bevento and Spoleto -- the whole area south of of Rome-Ravenna corridor -- never acknowledged the overlordship of the Lombard kings in Pavia, and thus can't be considered part of the "Kingdom of Italy" discussed here. Am I wrong? --Jfruh (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, although I'm not completely certain of the precise status of those duchies. Even if they were, I think it's still a bad map, since I'd say that the "Medieval Kingdom of Italy" applies much more to the post-Frankish period than it does to the Lombard Kingdom. A map depicting its extent in the High Middle Ages would seem much more sensible to me. john k (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This article appears to be the victim of an ongoing move war. The above requested move discussions show a preference for the disambiguator (medieval), but those discussions are old and consensus can change. Still, it seems to me that Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is the most stable title for this article, and it should probably remain at that title until a consensus can be reached for moving to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) or some other title.
05:33, 3 August 2013 Srnec (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) over redirect (the kingdom survived into the modern era)
08:35, 2 August 2013 Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (imperial) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval) over redirect (The term "medieval" is better because when Italy was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire it lost "de facto" its independence (during the Franks) and after the year 1000 it was already divided in s)
01:57, 5 July 2013 Srnec (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) (actual scope: see the great Spanish article)
16:59, 10 July 2012 Cuchullain (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per move request at Talk:Kingdom of Italy)
08:46, 28 June 2012 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect (Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=498732719#movereq-Kingdom_of_Italy)&wpMovetalk=1)
03:17, 20 February 2009 Gaugan (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to 'ħ(split)A(split)G(split)G(split)E(split)R? (edit summary removed)
02:45, 20 February 2009 Giovanni Rossi (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to 'ħ(split)A(split)G(split)G(split)E(split) R? (edit summary removed)
05:01, 5 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval)(redirects) (get this clutter out from under incoming move)
16:20, 4 July 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Lombards Kingdom
06:38, 9 June 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy over redirect
17:30, 8 June 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy
07:17, 2 March 2007 Domino theory (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move to Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire). While this name doesn't appear to be perfect, there appears to be consensus that this is at least a better name, and no name even better has been suggested. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Kingdom of Italy (imperial) → Kingdom of Italy (medieval) – I hate to further continue the move war on this page, but Kingdom of Italy (medieval) has been the most stable title so far, and the result of the most recent RM discussion was to move back to Kingdom of Italy (medieval), before a user boldly moved it again without any discussion, against the recent consensus. At this point I think we're all tired of it. Can we move protect this page once discussion here closes? Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As the bold editor, I oppose. I moved it because I wanted to lift material from the excellent Spanish article Reino de Italia, which actually begins the kingdom in 962 and distinguishes it from the kingdom of 774–962 and from the Lombard kingdom pre-774. The Italian Wiki has an article on the Lombard kingdom and on the Italian kingdom from 888 to 1024. Clearly no consensus exists among Wikipedians as to when or what this medieval Italian kingdom was. All of these dates mark major changes (774, 888, 962, 1024), but none marks the dissolution or creation of an Italian kingdom. Kingdoms were neither vaporised nor conjured up that easily in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support For the sake of consistency. If Germany deserves a fake kingdom to prove that it existed in the Middle Ages, So Italy deserves it too. Ceiscoran (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This comment has nothing to do with the move proposal. What's more, the user has never read any medieval history. Srnec (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support From 781 to 963 the Kingdom of Italy (Medieval) was independent. Only since 963 it became part of the Holy Roman Empire because of the deposition of Adalbert of Italy made by Otto I of Germany after his previous invasion in 951. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
What happened in 781 or 963? Charlemagne became king of the Lombards in 774 and Otto was crowned with the same crown in 951. How was Italy "independent" under Charlemagne, but not under Otto the Great? Srnec (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose to (Medieval) and (Imperial). Support to (Holy Roman Empire). --Enok (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Medieval" is clearly incorrect, since the kingdom lasted at least until 18th century. I don't like "imperial" either. --Enok (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be more or less fine with that, but "Holy Roman Empire" may come off somewhat anachronistic before Otto I's time. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment. The Medieval Kingdom of Italy was the state that the Lombards founded in 568 (or 604), was conquered by the Franks in 774, and which collapsed around 950. After that, various magnates claimed the title of "king of Italy". But these pretensions are less mainstream history, more an aspect of royalty watching and genealogy. It doesn't appear that there is any source that supports the view of the kingdom taken in this article, i.e. that it was founded in 800 and dissolved in 1806. NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing "collapsed around 950". What "various magnates" are you referring to? I can think of one (Arduin). The article should not imply that Italy was formed in 800 (it wasn't).
My source is The Oxford Illustrated History of Italy: "the break-up of the Kingdom of Italy, which the Carolingians inherited from their Lombard predecessors....By 950 the whole of Italy, north and south, was characterized by fragmentation of power into units of different sizes" (p. 42). In a discussion of 12th century politics, the book refers to "the former Kingdom of Italy" (p. 48). In short, the claim that the kingdom continued to exist under the Holy Roman Empire might be true in some limited sense, but it is not a part of mainstream historical accounts. We could have an article entitled Kingdom of Italy (medieval), which would cover 568 to 962. This would be followed up by Italy and the Holy Roman Empire, which would cover 962 to 1806. The "various magnates" I was referring to are the Habsburgs and others who are said, at least on Wikipedia, to have been kings of Italy after 962. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) has a long list of Ferdinand III's titles, but doesn't mention Italy. So it seems that the title had been dropped by that time, even as an imperial decoration. NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sock activity - note to admin closing, comments from user under a community ban should be disregarded or removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The year 962 is certainly a more logical start date for this article than 800 is. But how was Italy more "imperial" in 962-1806 than in other periods? Cambridge uses the phrase "Imperial Italy" to refer to Justinian's rule. The phrase was also a Fascist slogan. Are we still going with "kingdom"? I checked the Golden Bull of 1356, which was the empire's organic act. I don't see any indication the Italy had "kingdom" status at that time. NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
SupportKingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) per Cuchullain and IP. This entity was around for way too long to simply call medieval, but neither is "imperial" a particularly good disambiguator. If it was a constituent of the HRE for the entirety of its existence, this seems like the best option. A split might also be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
In the Middle Ages, the HRE was divided into three component kingdoms. Italy and Arles belonged to the elected king of Germany by right, as did the imperium, which was exercised after a papal coronation. Bohemia was a separate electoral crown entirely, a vassal of the king/emperor of Germany. It was not one of the basic divisions of the empire but a state within it, like Saxony, Bavaria or Milan. It should not be lumped in with the Italy, Germany and Arles/Burgundy. And in fact, after 1 January 1806 the Empire had two other kingdoms within it (Bavaria and Württemberg) on a par with Bohemia, although this only lasted six months. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No, Kingdom of Bohemia was not like Electorate of Saxony, Electorate of Bavaria or Milan. Saxony and Bavaria were electorates of Kingdom of Germany and Milan was a part of Kingdom of Italy. Kingdom of Bohemia was neither a part of Kingdom of Germany, nor Italy, nor Burgundy. Using "vassal" is completely incorrect and POV in this context and as Italy and Arles belonged to the elected king of Germany by right, and Bohemia was a separate electoral crown entirely, Bohemia is more likely to stand as a basic division unit of the Empire with Germany, than Italy and Burgundy theoretically would, as the latter two didin't even have their own kings. What are basic division units of the Holy Roman Empire is not up to someone editor's will. It is very clear that the Empire had 4 kingdoms for most of its history even though Italy and Burgundy were a subject to the Kingdom of Germany. Terms like "not be lumped" are POV and removing one of four kingdoms of the empire because of its higher autonomy is nonsense.--Der Golem (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
For Bohemia as a vassal, see Jaroslav Pánek's contribution to The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806: A European Perspective. For the medieval theory of the three "blocks of territories" (Germany, Italy and Burgundy), see Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, p. 20. The editor who is trying to impose his will here is you. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course you just pick out the sources that support your version. Good luck.--Der Golem (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the infobox because it was rife with errors:
"Associated state" is both anachronistic and incorrect. It was part of the Empire.
The terminal dates 781 and 1556 are completely made up. There was a great deal of continuity between the kingdom before and after the Frankish conquest of 774, likewise a large part of Italy continued within the Empire well past 1556.
Pavia was the capital at least until the palace was sacked in 1024.
"Italics" is not a demonym of anything.
There were no thalers in 781–1014, so I have no idea why that's there.
So I removed it. It is not worth fixing. This was not a "state" in the conventional sense for most of its life. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)