Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Coat of arms

Someone's added a coat of arms to the article. However, I believe that they are in fact either personal to the emperor (and thus belong at Holy Roman Emperor), or more likely are just for the Habsburg monarchy. Can anyone either confirm or contradict this? Silverhelm 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

Silverhelm is right. These coats of arms is one of the Emperor (if the year given 1605 is correct it is Rudolf II) including lands not belonging to the HRE (Hungary, Croatia). The crown is the "Rudolfinian house crown" (created by Rudolf II), It was used by the Emperor at state occasions (the Imperial crown was only avaiable for the coronation) and in 1804 was declared the Austrian Imperial crown. Str1977 14:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Why does the article as-is make no mention of the Ottoman Empire, who was probably the biggest military/economic opponent of the HRE in the 16th and early 17 c., when both were at their largest and most powerful points. Just a suggestion for possible improvement. - unsigned

The Habsburg Empire is not the Holy Roman Empire. The latter was most certainly not at its most powerful point in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some mention of the Turkish threat in the 16th century would likely be appropriate, though. john k 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

fair points - unsigned

Wasn't the Holy Roman Empire at war with the Ottoman Empire during Suleiman I's reign? I don't see any mention of this in the article. Kaldari 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

News: German Wiki Notice Board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Dutch line removed?

Might I ask why the Dutch translation of "The Holy Roman Empire" removed?

Dutch* was just as much a language of the Holy Roman Empire as high german and low Saxon (the latter is not included btw.)

  • Dutch has been traced back to the begin of 5th century.

We also must not forget that the "German" part in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation does not refer to Germany or specifically the Germans.During the age of the Holy Roman Empire till far in the 18th century "German" did not exist.In fact the English variant of "German" in German was Dutch (compare Deutsch) and it refered to every native speaker of a continental west germanic language.In other words anyone living within the present day countries of The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland or northern Belgium.

I would especially like to receive a responds from User:Kaihsu who reverted my edit.

Sander 23:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The same material is repeated later in the same article along with several other counterparts. It is good style to try to avoid overloading the first paragraph. Further, I can nearly be certain that "Heilige Roomse Rijk der Duitse Volkeren" is not how they spoke "Dutch" in the 5th century. For that matter, neither is "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation". – Kaihsu 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That is true Kaihsu about the Dutch and German in the 5th century but the Holy Roman Empire lasted well into the modern era (early 19th century in fact) and for the last few centuries of its existence modern German was the dominant language of the "empire".

So then why is german mentioned in the beginning of the article?! Sander 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

German is and should be mentioned in beginning of the article because modern High German was the dominant language in the empire for part of its history (late middle age, modern era until 1806). Before this period Latin and Middle German, a predeccessor of modern Dutch and German, were the primary languages. Modern Dutch was never a language of the Holy Roman Empire as the Dutch left the HRE before modern Dutch was standardized. The empire was, especially towards it end overwhelmingly German speaking and that language dominated the politics and culture of the HRE for centuries. That Sander is why German along with Latin is mentioned at the start of the article. Dutch on the other does belong in the list of successor languages. --62.245.143.34 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pay attencion now User:62.245.143.34 because I'm going to tell you the truth now so mark my letters.

1) Middle German, whatever the hell that is, is NOT the ancestor of the Dutch language, from what I understand you're one of those people that think that Dutch is some German dialect.WRONG.Dutch is a separate language and at the moment dated older than the German language.

2) The culture of the low countries CANNOT be compared to the culture of the rest of the Holy Roman Empire, the Netherlands officially seceded from the HRE in 1648 but had been a totally independ state for 80 years before that.

3) The Dutch language was standadized in 1635 (The process started in 1477) ! 9 Years before the Dutch officially left.The socalled Middle German language of the Holy roman empire is A JOKE! Untill the Middle Ages LOW GERMAN languages, like modern Platt, were the most dominant because of the hanseatic league.Not any high german dialect.And apart from that... if MIDDLE GERMAN (whatever that is) was the language of the HRE ... then why should MODERN GERMAN BE MENTIONED?! Isn't that a successor language?!Modern Dutch started in the 16th century ... can one say the same about modern German?!

So the next time you try to lecture me ... think again. Sander 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for being so rude. Always a good way to make a point.
1. If you don't know what Middle German is then enter it in Wikipedia.. there's an entry on it. I never called myself an expert on linguistics, nor was it my intention to lecture you but the point seemed pretty simple to me. Dutch was never a dominant language of the HRE, regardless of which dialects it developed from. Modern German on the other hand was.
2. I didn't mention the culture of the Low Countries, you just did that yourself.
3. As I just said, the point was pretty simple Sander... modern High German was the dominant language of the Holy Roman Empire for several centuries up until it ended in 1806. The dialects of the Netherlands - whatever you want to call them were never in a similar position as far as I can tell since Latin probably occupied that role for much of the empire's history. And in case you still are incapable of comprehending, I will say it simply. German should be listed because unlike Dutch it was one not only a successor language to the Germanic dialect of most common people in the HRE... remember the HRE EXISTED UNTIL 1806, at which time modern German had been its dominant language for centuries. What is so hard to understand about that - it isn't as if the HRE only existed in the middle ages in case you forgot.
I have no idea of what you problem is but it isn't mine - and by the way I never called Dutch a dialect of German, so take your bitterness/anger somewhere else please. I see no problem with having the German and Latin names of the HRE mentioned, especially considering that the latin or/and German names were in the first paragraph for most of the article's history without much controversy - that is why I just added them again. If you have such a problem with the Latin and German names being included start a poll and find out what others say about it before you delete them at your own will, because I for one do not agree. Deleting the Latin and German names just because Dutch was removed from one list seems pretty petty and POV to me.
--MagicMonkey 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1806, by which time the German name was identical to the modern German name. The HRE was a largely German state. Note that the name of the Empire in other languages represented within the Empire - French (in the southern Netherlands, Franche Comté, and Savoy), Italian (in the Trentino, Trieste, and, arguably, in most of northern Italy), Sorbian (in Lusatia), Czech (in Bohemia and Moravia), Polish (in Silesia), Slovene (in Carniola), are also not listed. It wouldn't make any sense to list Dutch (which was, after 1648, only represented in parts of the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands) without listing all of these other languages, as well. And that would be silly. German and Latin seems fully sufficient to me. john k 03:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


All of you editors need to understand that the Holy Roman Empire EVOLVED.High Germanic dialects only became dominant during the second half of the HRE's existance, before that Low Germanic language were dominant. (BTW When did Latin ever dominant with over 50 % of the pop??)

This article seems to imply that the HRE was a German state, which it so wasn't. Latin and German are mentioned in the article itself and have no more right than any other language to be mentioned in the intro.

Removing the netherlands infobox because of irrelevance is a disgrace! I'd like to have a little discussion with the person who thinks it's the right thing to do.And with that, denies that the HRE wasn't part of the history of the Netherlands. Sander 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit again. Like I said you should start a poll if you take such issue with the names, which as I said were quite uncontroversial for most of the article's history. I do not think your arguments justify you simply deleting them and that being the end of it. Sander your agruments are extremely confusing to be honest.

I will say it simply again so you can comprehend.

1. The High German name is included at the start because it (modern High German) was the dominant language of the HRE for a more than a century until its demise in 1806. Its the only "living" language that held this position. Dutch did not, so why can you not accept that finally. Also most of the regions that at some point comprised the HRE are now part of German-speaking nations, as if the first argument was not enough anyway. Anyway German has been listed (for years now) for obvious reasons and your arguments just do not convince me otherwise. Your arguments about low and high Germanic dialects are irrelevants because it would not make any sense to list every archaic dialect spoken in the HRE here. High German on the other hand unlike the Germanic dialects you listed was simply in dominant position in the HRE in its last centuries. By the 19th century the HRE was basically a German-speaking confederation for all intents and purposes
2. Latin was a lingua franca among the European educated classes for many of the centuries that the HRE existed, including among the nobility of the HRE. I am no expert on the use of latin in the middle ages but I will assume that would be a very good reason for its inclusion.
Either way your arguments are not convincing for me and really seem to be more about your own personal Dutch chauvinism than about improving the article. Listing the German name does not imply the HRE was a German state any more than than listing the Latin one implies it was a Roman state. I reverted the article and would ask that you start a poll here since not many others here seem to have expressed supporting your argument or having a problem with the German and Latin names.
--62.245.143.34 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? It's not about me convincing you, it's about the truth of this article. Modern German started in 1650.The Dutch language was standardized in 1635. It doesn't matter if German (Which wasn't the same as now) was most spoken within this terribly obscure 'empire' ... it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro.It will, like latin, be mentioned in the tab below the article.Because of this, I will revert again.Sander 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And you don't get that Wikipedia is about consesus and not your opinion. Just start a poll if you want the change. Until you get better arguments of more people supporting this unneccesary change to the article I will have to disagree. Reverted again (this is my second for today and I would rather not have a third, so please just start the poll to get your change through on this issue). Like I said without better arguments I will not change my position that the article was quite okay and accurate with the two names in place. --62.245.143.34 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about the truth and honesty.It doesn't matter if 51% of the people here think the holocaust didn't happen it would still be listed. I will revert again on the ground of my arguments. And if you, --62.245.143.34 can't find them.Read better. Sander 16:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So Sander please tell me what is so hard about starting a poll and as I told you Wikipedia is also about consensus and not about your opinion. Also please explain what is untrue about the point I and John K made about German being the main language of the HRE in the centuries after the middle ages. What is not true about that????? And your holocaust denier comparison is just plain stupid and embarrassing.

--MagicMonkey 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Try to read.

Any other language has the same right to be mentioned in the first line.Why should contempory high German and classical latin have more right? Sander 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Any other language hmmm how about Swahili or Japanese or Welsh. Sander it has already been said to you but here it goes again. Not many people have had a problem with this except for you so maybe you should ask yourself why? The reason why German is and should remain in the first paragraph is that the HRE for at least one century before 1806 was a largely (modern) German speaking union, and as I said most of the former territories that comprised the HRE are now in the German-speaking countries. And Latin was the language of the educated and politically important for much of the HRE's history. To pretend German did not occupy a more important role in the HRE than any other modern language is just stupid and silly revisionism and I see no reason for it. --MagicMonkey 14:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> The languages, spoken within the Holy Roman Empire and/or their modern counterparts, are mentioned further on in the article.

It doesn't mean anything that the a form of high German (Early New High German) was spoken most within a political association, because in the final centuries it was hard to call the "Empire" an empire, it does not make it more special than all the other languages.Same thing for latin. German and Latin, like all the other languages are mentioned further on in the article, just like any other language. If you think it's so important to add that in the final hundred or what years early new high german was the most spoken language of the holy roman empire then just add it behind the German translation. Sander 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats just plain nonsense. Like I said the names were here for a long time with little to no controversy. You are simply lying or you are ignorant to suggest that modern German did not play a dominant in fact dominating role in the HRE in the time before it was ended. The only reason I see for your revisionism is your problem with German or your bitterness about Dutch not being included. In my opinion you have not given a convincing subjective argument. The USA also does not have a defacto official language and at least a tenth of all Americans speak a different native language besides English but in the non-English Wikipedias the English name is obviously included (and no, I'm not comparing HRE to the US directly). Its just a fact the HRE consisted largely of areas that are now in German-speaking countries/regions. It also a fact that modern German was the dejure official language of the HRE in the period before it was dissolved in 1806. And that does not make it "special" but it is true and it does give it a greater status in discussing the HRE than language like Dutch or French which were also spoken in parts of the Empire at some point. This is just about silly revisionism that has nothing to with improving the article.--MagicMonkey 15:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect me to discuss this matter with you when you dismiss good arguments as redivisionism and/or childisms? Sander 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed and disccused and laid out my arguments and quite frankly it does not seem to matter to you. So I will just wait for more opinions and pay attention to the changes you "try´" to make here. And I called your actions childish such as posting previous and totally unrelated edits of an editor here and yes your actions do seem to me to have more to do with not accepting that Dutch did not as important a role in the HRE as German did.. And yes I find it revisionist to insist on pretending German had a similar in the HRE (post-middle ages) as the other language listed did when its clear the role of German was far greater.

--MagicMonkey 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous edits by User: 62.245.143.34

An impression of User:62.245.143.34's views I suppose you had a poll and valid arguments for these edits?

(Attempted) denial of Nazi/German war crimes.

Denial of Nazi/German war crimes.

(Attempted) denial of Nazi/German war crimes.

Denial of Nazi/German war crimes.

Sander 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


I am seriously on the verge of requesting mediation here, because you are behaving incredibly immature. Posting somebody's previous comments (out of context) does not make your arguments anymore legitimate and probably won't get you much support. How dare you try to make me look like a nationalist and a German nationalist at that (I am not even German). The edits you (selectively) listed had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi denial - notice how you didn't find a single pro-Nazi or national socialist edit did you. Most of the so-called edits you mentioned were simply citations for sources - so you either missed that or you are were manipulating my history on purpose. All of those edits were done in reaction to one Wiki editor's POV language in articles concerning Germany. I won't name the editor or his nationality (but its obvious who I mean) because this does not belong here but if you had done a little more researching you would have seen the connection to that one editor. Like I said there was not a single edit there that is pro-Nazi or even pro-German really so get a grip. You are behaving childishly and immature and your arguments are not more legitimate because of it... that is why your contributions have been reverted in the last 2 days not just by me but also by two other editors. And yes I reverted the article again and put the latin and German names that as I do not seem to bother many other people. Try to get some real arguments to support your contributions and maybe you will convince the other people who reverted your edits here.
Here is one of the FIVE PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA - you might want to think about it a bit.Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations.--MagicMonkey 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do call a mediation, it's not like I'm afraid of your threats. Take note of how I insinuated that 62.245.143.34 was a German nationalist, not you. Sander 12:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sander what exactly is your issue! I suggest yet again that we start a poll to try and find out where others might stand on this issue. I am trying to deal with this disagreement rationally and it would be nice if you could try to keep things civil and perhaps try to find a solution. Like I said I am all for a poll on the issue. Try to remember the word consensus before you next reply.

--62.245.143.34 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry 62.245.143.34 I refrain from further discussion with you because of moral reasons.I hope you'll understand. Sander 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Sander but you are truly one of the least informed editors I have come across here. Go read the Wikipedia guidelines and especially those on etiquette and consensus. I filed a request for informal mediation in the hopes that it might actually get things going here. If you choose not to discuss an issue its your problem but it would be best if also refrain from editing if you want to remain "silent". Either way not discussing is not the way to build consensus.

--MagicMonkey 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Insulting and accusing me of not discussing the matter isn't going to help you MagicMonkey, anyone who can read will see who is and who isn't discussing here. Sander 14:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I refrain from further discussion with you because of moral reasons.I hope you'll understand. Your words, not mine Sander. And its strange how you use Wiki guidelines in your last revert (edit summary) but manage to ignore some of the most important one on conduct here when you throw personal attacks including labeling somebody a nationalist/nazi.

--MagicMonkey 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did I call anyone a nazi MagicMonkey ? Sander 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh please Sander, I hate to use this language but please don't play dumb. If you call somebody's action nationalist (especially in a context about Germany), accuse them of Nazi crime "denials", and then say you will not discuss an issue with them for "moral reasons" then you know very well what you are getting at. And speaking of rules it was nice of you to violate the 3-revert rule. I will respect the rules and refrain from such action.--MagicMonkey 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contruary, you broke that rule as well.I will repeat that I never called anyone a nazi.

Sander 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat you are playing dumb. You know very well what you did (just look above at the start of this section) and it was out of line, rude, and non-productive for the discussion. --MagicMonkey 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing dumb dear MagicMonkey, it's just that you claim that I called someone a nazi while I'm pretty sure I never did such a thing. As for the "out of line, rude, and non-productive"-ness of this particular section... I believe it's a good thing to know what kind of person I'm talking with in a discussion.His or her clear German(y) über alles in this discussion made me curious about what else the user had edited on wikipedia.To be honest I was quite shocked really.I think edits like these should be (but already were) public information.I believe it gives some additional flavour to the motives of 62.245.143.34 Sander 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Countries' timeline boxes

Is it possible to resize all of them to an equal level? I can't help looking at the page, as it is now, it seems a bit messy. The Austrian box is that tiny, then we see this huge box of the Netherlands and then at the bottom a normal-sized German box. Sirupe 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

--

Does there have to be a Dutch History box?

If there is a Dutch infobox, there would have to be a French, a Czech, a Italian, a Swiss and maybe a Polish infobox, too. 84.187.110.107 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they should be included as well.Thing is that none of those history infoboxes mention the Holy Roman Empire.

Sander 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Quote: 

Liechtenstein is thus the last independent state in Europe which can  
claim an element of continuity from the Holy Roman Empire.

Is this true? Why don't Luxembourg and Austria count? Chl 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Luxemburg was ruled by the Dutch for quite some while. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

well the dutch were part of the empire till 1648 (Peace of Muenster), the same with switzerland.

The Dutch were officially part of the HRE till 1648, but they were completely independent from 1579 on.From that time on the HRE had no power over them. Apart from that what does your remark of the Netherlands being part of the HRE have to do with Luxembourg? Rex 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What he said. Luxembourg has been essentially a totally different entity from the 1500s on, and Austria is now a republic. Liechtenstein is the only one which is currently still a principality from the HRE which retains its original government structure. -The Gonz 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How to insert this picture from commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HRR_10Jh.jpg

I tried and failed Foreigner 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

just like any en-picture: [[Image:HRR_10Jh.jpg]] Agathoclea 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The image is a bit anachronistic though... it uses a modern map. Especially the Netherlands have changed considerably: Flevoland was created in the 20th century, just like the Delta Works. Both can be seen on the map, unlike, strangely, some of the Wadden islands. Junes 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Junes is right, so I took the map and changed it, I got the information from an early Dutch republic map, at this time reclaiming land wasn't that big a deal yet ... It's a bit more realistic now. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 10:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

File:HRR 10Jh.png

Attention: WikieWikieWikie

I will go through your edits, paragraph by paragraph, here, since I think there are quite a few problems with what you've proposed. I'll do this gradually, rather than right away. I do encourage you to make changes - but maybe stick to individual paragraphs, so we can discuss them as we go through. I do apologise, as this is bad Wikipedia etiquette, but I do believe your edits have introduced problems in the article. Slac speak up! 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it bad Wikipedia etiquet? Pray tell the good etiquette!

I keep getting my additions reverted. It is ironic. I try hard, yet seem to be break the mould so much and reset it people just revert my changes, which I put alot of effort into. I see no need for an apology though. It is obviously a hard lesson I am forced to learn. Little by little is really better for everyone, although some articles just seem careless, which mean I can't help edit entire sections.

There is a wealth of information available about Wikipedia policies around - Wikipedia:Etiquette for example. I strongly encourage you to read this and other important policies if you want more information. I think in some cases it may be hard for some users to understand the reasons behind your changes - talk pages are a good way of explaining potential edits. I'm sure everyone appreciates that you mean well and that you do try hard. Maybe when you've been around the place for a longer period things will start to become easier for you. Slac speak up! 11:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Intro paragraph

The Holy Roman Empire was a mainly Central European conglomeration of countries in the Middle Ages, also known as The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, in the 16th century, and the early modern period. It was at one point East Francia, the eastern divide of the Frankish Empire, with its partition in the Treaty of Verdun, in 843. It, offspring of Charlemagne, was Rome's successor for nearly a millennium as the Kingdom of Germany, until its dissolution, in 1806, at the command of Napoleon. By the 18th century, it consisted of most of Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Belgium, large parts of Poland, France and Italy, as well as small parts of the Netherlands, and Croatia. It was at it's peak consisting of all of the Netherlands, as well as Switzerland. In the 18th century, with the Empire already in decline, Voltaire famously commented disparaginly on its nomenclature, and the vanity of it's imperiousness, as he stated, the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
I think lands is somewhat better than countries since "countries" creates ambiguities for modern readers and lands is closer to German Land.
"It was at one point East Francia": It wouldn't have been true at any stage that the Holy Roman Empire was Eastern Francia. The HRE was the East Frankish successor state.
"Offsping of Charlemagne" is perhaps a little poetic, and in any case inaccurate, since Charlemagne's initiative decades earlier didn't have a direct impact on the formation of the Reich as a territorial entity.
"At the command of" - It's hard to succinctly encapsulate the process of the Empire's official dissolution. Napoleon formed the German Confederation as a rival and replacement for the Habsburg-dominated Empire, but did he actually order its dissolution? What's the best phrasing here, anyone?
Is Alsace-Lorraine a large part of France? The point is debatable. I would argue the earlier version is a better way of describing the territories of the Reich. Similar things can be said about "it was at it's peak consisting of" - which could be phrased somewhat better. You also removed "still", which is a good illustrative word showing that the Imperial realm varied over time, and was in decline by the 18th century.
"And the vanity of it's imperiousness" - please note that it's is not a possessive in Standard written English. This goes into expressing an opinion rather than simply commenting on what Voltaire was trying to say. Wasn't the earlier phrasing better?

Slac speak up! 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well put. I always get annoyed with 'it's' being the wrong way for 'it' to possess, although I realise its plural, 'its', is non existant, but, 'its', is, 'it is', its confusions confound me. I will try to consider your comments, although I kind of had my heart set on it before, maybe I can find a better way for it to be still.

WikieWikieWikie 09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Character of the Empire

I thought a large part of France meant eastern France, rather than Alsace and Lorraine, as it says in the Character of the Empire. I see now it was only early on eartern France was part of the Empire, although it looks like this early stage, it's peak, means a restructure of the lead up to the 18th century stage description might be a good idea.
Franche Comté was part of the Empire until 1678, as was most of what is now Nord department. Artois was in the Empire until 1659. Montbéliard and some other places in Alsace remained imperial until the Revolution. john k 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

German (and its many dialects and derivatives)

Yiddish was certainly a language of the Empire, and it's certainly a derivative of German, so I believe this to be accurate. Of course all languages have variation, but in the case of German, the designator "German" can be applied to such a wide swath of the dialect continuum that I think it's worth noting "many" as emphasising the diffuse nature of the Empire's linguistic situation. Slac speak up! 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Yiddish was a language of the empire, so why "hide" it behind "German derivatives" AFAIK German only had one derivative in the Holy Roman Empire period; Yiddish.
Also, don't you think "derivative" sounds somewhat degrading? Not that I say the writer implied anything with it of course, but that's just how I perceive it.
Rex 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, on reflection, derivative is probably not the best expression we could use here. Maybe something like "the many varieties of German?" Slac speak up! 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By varieties you also mean to include German dialects? (As Yiddish is the only derived language of German spoken in Europe) Rex 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire link in header

The following header was removed twice from this article:

This page is about the Germanic empire. For the ancient empire centred on Rome, see Roman Empire.

Suppose we'd be better off discussing this in the Talk page than endlessly going back and forth on it in the edit history. Personally, I feel the link should be restored. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who reached this article from another related article would be curious about the distinction between the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire. While it may be true that "nobody types in "Holy Roman Empire" thinking of ancient Rome" (to quote User:Neutrality), it is certainly plausable that someone learning of the Holy Roman Empire for the first timem would be confused, and utilize the link. I'm reinserting it, and believe it should stay put. MrZaiustalk 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A casual reader, unfamiliar with history, would likely assume that "Holy Roman Empire" was just another way of referring to the Empire of antiquity. Slac speak up! 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand this argument. A disambiguation link is not to explain the difference between terms, but to deal with disambiguating ambiguous titles. "Holy Roman Empire" is not a title which is ambiguous with "Roman Empire." The fact that it is different from the Roman Empire is clearly explained in the article text. Nobody searching for "Holy Roman Empire" is likely to be actually looking for the regular Roman Empire, and disambiguation is not for articles linked by other articles, as I understand it. john k 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never known anyone confuse the HRE (or embyonic HRE) with the ancient Roman Empire. Norvo 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that no one would type "Holy Roman Empire" looking for information on the Roman Empire. But I also believe that someone who really doesn't know any better (think children) and clicks on the HRE link from another article might not realize they are not the same thing, even after reading the first paragraph. I believe that either the disambiguation should be kept (preferable), or the very first paragraph should say something like "The Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire of antiquity) [...]".

And about the issue raised by john k, about the purpose of the disambiguation lines... I think that in a case as I described above (child, or someone completely clueless about the subject) the two titles are ambiguous. --Cotoco 05:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a parenthetical remark ini the introduction. john k 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could simply mention there the fact that the HRE was intended (or at least thought of) as a resurrection of the Western Roman Empire. As that is an important fact, I don't think it would sit badly at a prominent place in the introduction, and having that link handy will make it obvious to anyone that there are at least two different Roman Empires at play. (I do agree that the disambiguation header should only be used if people are likely to type in the wrong title, which clearly is not the case here.) -- Jao 08:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates and "demythologization"

Please spare a thought for ordinary users. In the early part of the article the date of foundation of the HRE is assumed to be 843, with hints that it goes back to 800. (843 is used for working how long the empire lasted). Then, much later, the article adopts the date usually given by German and Italian historians, namely 962. Even by early medieval standards that's a very substantial gap indeed. Surely, users are entitled to consistency on this within the article. I think they are also entitled to be told the date of the very first known use in writing of the title Sacrum Imperium Romanum. I've heard that this title dates from about 1254, in which case comment on the gap of over 400 years is needed. There is a related issue that merits at least a short paragraph: the mythologization of this imperial outfit. I suspect it may be the element of mythology that has led to attempts to push the date of foundation far back into the mists of time. Norvo 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The German Kingdom which would form the basis of the later Holy Roman Empire came into existence with the Treaty of Verdun in 843, in the form of Louis the German's kingdom of East Francia. The German kings began to be consistently crowned as western emperors beginning with Otto I's crowning in 962, after a long gap of 38 years since the death of the last emperor (two previous East Francian monarchs, Charles the Fat and Arnulf, had earlier been crowned emperor, but this was not part of any consistent unity between the two offices). The use of "Holy" and the name "Holy Roman Empire" seem to belong to a later period, but the actual edifice described certainly existed before the 13th century - it simply wasn't called that. To say that it is mythologization to refer to the "Holy Roman Empire" as existing before the 13th century is silly - the term Byzantine Empire is an entirely post facto construction, but it is not "mythologization" to talk about it as something that actually existed. I think 962 is probably the best date for the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, but any decent discussion ought to go back to the crowning of Charlemagne in 800, while being careful to explain the complexities of the 162 years between Charlemagne's coronation and Otto's. After 962 it's pretty smooth sailing - the fact that the precise term wasn't coined until later doesn't seem that important to me. john k 12:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the succinct explanations. (I was being deliberately provocative). How about including a paragraph about the dates for the benefit of people who aren't experts? For many it is very confusing to read in some places that Charlemagne was crowned HR Emperor in 800 and then to read in another encyclopedia that Otto I was the first HR Emperor. I imagine many people consult encyclopedias partly in the hope of finding an explanation to such questions. Norvo 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A paragraph would be helpful, certainly. I'll try to do it when I get around to it, but that might not happen, given my usual followthrough, so feel free to give it a try yourself - if you gave it a go, I'd definitely look it over and edit it. john k 21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A Holy Roman Empire wikiproject?

Hello to anyone watching this page. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries#A Holy Roman Empire sub-project?, I've proposed the idea of a wikiproject relating specifically to the Holy Roman Empire. I thought people with this page on their watchlist might be interested. I think that with a little work and co-ordination, it'd be possible to make wikipedia's coverage of this subject really excellent. john k 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A page has now been set up on WP Former Countries for such a subproject - here. The page is empty at the moment (the project pages are undergoing a bit of a cleanup at the moment, so i'm a bit busy), but there is now a talk page for this subproject. All welcome! - 52 Pickup 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

I felt bad after reverting the anon edit, but I thought it made fairly major changes in the intro, which warrant further investigation.

  1. It shifted the claim that the Empire began in 843 to beginning on Christmas Day, 800. Is there really a scholarly consensus on this issue? The question of "origins" and different starting dates has, it seems, plagued this article for a while. Maybe we need to look at how the article addresses it and craft a better summary.
  2. It started talking about the translatio imperii quite early. As with the first point, I think the pre-Renaissance attitude of contemporaries bears more investigation at this point. Was it universally believed that the Empire was authentically Roman? On a related note, yes it is true that many barbarian successor states viewed themselves as the upholders and successors of Roman rule (e.g. the Visigoths.) However, none of these states had their ruler crowned Imperator Augustus - a big, big deal in the medieval mindset.

Was I off-base in reverting? Does anyone care to give a second opinion? Slac speak up! 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

beginning of the "Holy" part of the title

Apparently someone has vandalized the page. Somewhat crude exclamations (...BALLS...DOUCHE...) have been randomly inserted between parts of sentences, and should be removed.

I tried to edit them out myself, but despite them clealy being on the page, I couldn't find them in the edit screen.

Hi. These edits have been removed - you're looking at an out-of-date version of the page. Try purging your cache. Slac speak up! 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankish successor

Forgive my asking a dumb question ...

The intro to the article describes a general relationship to the Frankish Empire but does not elucidate that relationship. It also mentions that it originated with Charlemagne which is not precisely true, of course. The state existed before Charlemagne; it was only the "Roman" aspect of it that was new with Charlemagne. Why not explicitly describe (in the intro) that this really is a matter of describing a later period of Frankish history in the same way that the Byzantine Empire intro describes that this term simply describes the later history of the Roman Empire?

I think this is an important point to clarify historically (and an important enough point to make in the intro rather than having the reader discern it from the details in the rest of the article). The points made afterward about Western perspectives and Byzantine perspectives would be clearer by making that point up front.

Am I missing something? --Mcorazao 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Holy Roman Empire was never quite the same thing as the Frankish realm. For one thing, the Frankish theory of kingship accomodated multiple kings in the same realm. For this reason, the Frankish empire was constantly split up and reunified as the various heirs died, although in a political sense the Franks thought of it as the one realm.
After the treaty of Verdun, the Frankish realm was again divided, this time, as it turns out, for good. The title of Emperor switched around a bit between the rulers of Western, Eastern, and Middle Francia (for most of the time it was in Middle Francia), before finally settling down in Eastern Francia. The Ottonian dynasty replaced the Carolingians in the East. Given that these realms were seen as personal property of rulers rather than cohesive, permanent states in the Roman or modern tradition, the sense of it all "being the same realm" disappeared as the dynasty changed.
The Empire was really an agglomeration of territories rather than a single polity. The rulers of these states all owed loyalty to the Emperor under the rules of feudalism, but the entity that became "Germany" was partly within, partly outside of the Empire's borders and mostly outside of its direct authority. As Imperial authority became weaker and weaker, Emperors relied on their personal fiefs and let other magnates pretty much do as they pleased. The Habsburg emperors' fiefs were mostly outside the borders of the Empire itself (what later became the Austrian Empire).
I hope that helps to explain why it would be inaccurate to describe the Empire of, say, the 15th Century (or, for that matter, 15th Century France) as simply a continuation of the Frankish realm.
Use of "Byzantine" is justified partly on classificatory grounds: the Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian Empire which had its capital at Constantinople certainly saw itself as the same entity as its Latin-speaking pagan predecessor based around Italy, but the two realms, are, in some sense, distinct as well as similar. Slac speak up! 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well ... certainly it is true that the Frankish realm was not as well-defined a state as the Roman Empire. But at the time of Charlemagne's reign he had actually unified the Franks (and other tribes) and that was really the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire (even though it did not have that precise title at the time). So the Holy Roman Empire and the Frankish Empire were the same thing. Certainly after that time the empire fragmented and went through all sorts of weird changes. So you can make the whole argument that it was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." But whatever it was it still the successor to Charlemagne's realm. Certainly there were other states that were also successors but treating the HRE as something independent does not make sense to me. In the same sense, treating the Byzantine Empire as something independent of the Roman Empire doesn't make sense either (any more than treating the empire of Julius Caesar and the empire of Diocletian as different states would make sense even though there were huge differences). The Byzantine Empire article clearly states up front that it was the Roman Empire, not something separate. The difference is really just a historical naming convention (pointing to some important changes, of course, but not the only changes the empire ever went through).

I'm not implying that I am any sort of expert in these matters. It just strikes me that this an area where the details are obscuring the fundamentals. --Mcorazao 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a simpler way of stating it IMHO is that the HRE is no more and no less a successor state to the Frankish Empire than France is. I would maintain that the HRE and the Frankish realm were never precisely the same thing. The title of Imperator as bestowed on Charlemagne implied universal jurisdiction, and the Emperor de jure was ruler of the entire Catholic world. But the Empire as a realm - not the title - evolved out of East Francia, since Charlemagne's empire had already fallen apart. In effect there were Holy Roman Emperors before there was a Holy Roman Empire; when the later came about, it was as East Francia, not the Frankish empire. The difference between this state of affairs and the post-Tetrarchic Roman Empire is that the latter was fairly clearly one state, with (usually) two sets of rulers. The Frankish successor kingdoms after Verdun lacked this sort of cohesion since they were the personal proprty of their respective ruling dynasties. Slac speak up! 12:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin German Translation

Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae is absolutely correct, but the translation with this "word accumulation" Heiliges Römischen Reiche des Deutscher Nation is just horrible. It should be more like Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation. This way it would be grammatically correct.

Hoika 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Carolingian Empire

The distinction between this article and the "Carolingian Empire" article is unclear. I believe the authors' intent was to say that "Carolingian Empire" refers to a sub-period of the "Holy Roman Empire". One could also argue that the Holy Roman Empire succeeded the Carolingian Empire. I would argue the former is a better nomenclature.

The point is that the articles need to clearly disambiguate this one way or the other (i.e. decide how Wikipedia is going to use these terms and then modify the articles to clearly explain the nomenclature). The way they are right now it would be confusing to the novice as to whether these were two co-existent empires or what precisely is meant. --Mcorazao 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Roman German hybrid"

I reverted the addition of a tag line pointing to the article Roman German hybrid for these reasons:

  1. The tag had a capitalization error ("german").
  2. The article it linked to is of dubious relevance.
  3. The article it linked to is very poorly edited and unsourced.

-- Rob C (Alarob) 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire/Archive_2&oldid=1136800523"