Talk:Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor

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

Initial comments[edit]

If this man was Emperor BEFORE he became duke of this, that and the other, we should name the article accordingly. WOuld someone please clarify? Also, Descendant still only has two 'd's... Last paragraph removed because it made no sense. User:JHK

Another one I missed: note how he "ascended the throne in 1387" but doesn't say which throne (it's Hungary, which the structure implies was 1419). And lots of vaguely connected princesses but not a Hussite to be seen in the Bohemia of 1419-1437! Incredible! The title used in the article should reflect the seniority of the titles he held, irrespective of sequence: Thus anyone who was Emperor should be entered under that title with their Imperial name and ordinal (I think this is what you were asking about with Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia: since his Emperorship outranks his Kingship, he is plain "Wenceslaus [no ordinal, but it would have been I if there'd later been another], Holy Roman Emperor". Sigismund is similarly Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, because like Tigger he's the only one. DP

Ahhh, I see to the totally visually impaired XX person to his totally hearing impaired XX descendend....

My question is, of course, "But do W and S bounce??" User:JHK

But of course: W was bounced out of Germany, and S out of the Balkans and (for a while) Bohemia. Funniest thing I've just noticed, though, is that after introducing every other female relation, she forgot (for once!) the wife, Mary, key to Sigismund's possession of Hungary. Typical! DP

NPOV re Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis[edit]

In the section on Beyazid in Ottoman Empire, i've NPOVed the portion on nature of Murad's death and outcome of the battle of Nicopolis (AKA Nikopol, Bulgaria). I edited only that article, for the moment, since it is clearly in progress (and the contributor may be about to review transcriptions or wording for reconsideration) and since there are two articles at hand that contradict the battle part.

I am also adding this note to talk pages of Ottoman Empire, Beyazid I, and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor.

If the Ottoman Empire contributor defends her/his version with sources, IMO others should also bring forward sources, and there should be discussion, in case the factual dispute is not resolved, about how to lessen the burden of NPOVing the various articles affected - e.g., could all three articles say "see Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis for controversial matters relevant to this section"? -- Jerzy 20:37, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unclear passage[edit]

Parts of the following passage is unclear:

Through his marriage to Mary of Hungary, queen of Hungary 1382-1385 and 1386-1395, Sigismund, always the jealous type, became only her consort. Earlier, because of Sigismund's wickedness, he was expelled from Poland, which was then given to Mary's younger sister Jadwiga I of Poland, who married Jagiello of Lithuania. ...

"Earlier" than what? What "wickedness"? "which was then given" = Mary's sister became queen(?) of Poland?

--Michael Noel Jones 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Elections and titles[edit]

I've removed the description of Wenceslaus, Sigismund's brother, as emperor. If the article can be wrong on so basic a point then I don't feel I can trust it at all. When I have time, I'll come back to the article and at least sort out the stuff about Sigismund's election, which is very unclear. I will need to look at his election and the passingly mentioned rival election of Jobst, and also at the circumstances of Sigismund's coronation (not mentioned here but likely to be revealing because the western schism was still in effect). The statement that Sigismund was "elected emperor" strikes me as dubious, though I've left it in for the time being — because it is my impression that emperors could not be elected, only kings of the Romans (I'm presuming that's what he was elected as); should a king of the Romans be subsequently crowned by the pope, that would make him emperor. "Emperors-Elect" (gents not crowned by the papacy but calling themselves emperors anyway) were a later phenomenon, as far as I know. Such things all take time to check properly — you have to look at who the electors were, where they convened etc. — but I will come back. qp10qp 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the List of HREmperors page would agree with you on the 'emperor elect' question, and gives Charles IV, 1355-1378 -> Sigismund, 1410-1437 as the relevant HREmperors during this period. --Michael Noel Jones 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I have changed the translation of "Ego sum rex Romanus et super grammaticam" to the much more famous version. It is the translation given by Carlye and is clearly in the spirit of the original. In fact I can't find the previous translation on any page that isn't derived from this one, leading me to believe this may have been the work of an overzealous editor. (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the translation. What is the original? This article says Ego sum rex Romanus et super grammaticam but the Latin Wikipedia says Ego sum rex Romanorum et super grammaticam. Which was it? — Chameleon 05:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Romanorum is correct Latin. Romanus is jaw-droppingly incorrect. In the interests of charity and in deference to the Latin Wikipedia, I am changing the text. Mrrhum (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure in what sense "Romanorum" is "jaw-droppingly incorrect." Grammatically it's fine; "Rex Romanus" is "Roman King" rather than "King of the Romans", but cf. "Senatus Populusque Romanus". Moreover "Romanus" is given both in Cayle, cited in the article, as well as Cayle's own source, Menzel. One W. A. B. C. cites a Professor Bryce to claim that "Rex Romanorum" is the correct form, but this seems to be a matter of the general usage of the title, not a claim about how Sigismund spoke the line in this particular case. At any rate, with no source giving "Rex Romanorum" as the original quote, and the citation actually in the article having "Rex Romanus", I am changing it to the latter both here and on the Latin page. RowansWarden (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of the quote is that Romanus is incorrect: Sigismund was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an emperor - at least in the sense of having fully mastered Latin. Whether he actually said either of these things is probably impossible to establish fully. DruartG (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of burial place[edit]

There is an edit war brewing over Sigismund's burial place. My understanding is that, at the time of his burial, the place was called Nagy Várad or Nagyvárad. Per WP:PLACE this is therefore the name we should use, albeit we can show the current name Oradea in brackets. Sources in the literature using the historic title include Bradbury's The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare and Gergely and Mathe's The Hungarian state: thousand years in Europe : [1000-2000]. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bermicourt, for your comment. Since the town was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time, we should use that historical name. Here are some more English sources which use "Nagyvárad": [1][2][3]. By the way, the German name of the town (Grosswardein) is also used by English sources [4][5] so we may mention it, too. And naturally, the modern Romanian name of the town should also be given. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigismund of Luxembourg, KG[edit]

Isn't it a bit silly to go listing "KG" after his name? It's no means his most important honour/title and the modern British postnominal system was not in use six hundred years ago in Germany, so I highly doubt that anyone then or now has actually called him this. Furius (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)