Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

i dont understand the first paragraph of the history section

It says 'the imperial crown was contested'. I dont understand which crown that is talking about.. is it the Roman Empire crown, or the Frankish Empire crown, or the Carolingian Empire crown or what? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Empire"

In this map, the Holy Roman Empire is simply called "The Empire". Is this a common abbreviation in the English language?

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since for the West there was only one empire (the Roman Empire of the Byzantines was considered schismatic) there was no need to qualify it by the adjectives Holy and Roman in common parlance.--Gazzster (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what to do with the article The Empire, now redirecting to Empire. Maybe it should redirect here? Right now, most of the links to it actually mean The Empire (Warhammer). So maybe disambiguation to 1. Holy Roman Empire and 2. The Empire (Warhammer)? Or deleting it at all? The redirect to Empire makes not much sense after all... --Abe Lincoln (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes--Gazzster (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised by the number of people who don't even know this country existed, hell, most people i see in my school who don't pay attention thing the black sea is turkey/ottoman empire. And when i think of "the empire," i think of star wars, --Jakezing (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about redirecting "The Empire" here, but now that it's done, I've added a disambiguation line at the beginning of the article. It links to Empire (disambiguation). -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Un Redirected back to the disamb. There was no vote, no consensous, and thats ONE map, go on the street and ask anybody "what do you think of when you hear the word empire", yiu main answers will be a video game empir,e the star wars one or a combination of "whats" and insults.--Jakezing (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but how many people know that there was such an entity as the 'Holy Roman' Empire, eh?--Gazzster (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But how many of them call it "The Empire"? That map calls it the empire, possibly because "It's a map made in the HRe by a HRe citizen, the fact there wernt any other western european empires calling themselvs empires, and the fact it was an empire. One map dosn't constitute thats the most widly known term for it and what most will search for.--Jakezing (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a suggestion that 'the Empire' is the most widely used term. Nevertheless it is common term. It's evident from the print and quality of the map that it's a relatively recent one.Perhaps if I can reference uses of the short form.--Gazzster (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

'The Empire' seems to be a common pre-1945 term. Just grabbing a few titles off my shelf we have Everyman's A Literary & Historical Atlas of Europe (1910, 1923) refer to it as the 'Roman Empire' (1000, 1189) and 'The Empire' (15th C - 1789); and Britannica's The March of Man (1935) use 'The Empire' (1000-1100, and in its world maps) and then 'Holy Roman Empire' (1200 onward). Time-Life Books' The Concise Historical World Atlas (c.1987) also uses 'The Empire' in its world maps, but there are clearly copies from a much older source. Ditto with Hammond's Historical Atlas of the World (1969) which uses 'The Empire' and 'Holy Roman Empire' interchangeably in maps throughout. Rwestera (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of mistakes

Just read the first few sentences of this article and they are full of mistakes. Examples? The HRR indeed was also known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation from the late 15th century, but not officially, a Kingdom of Germany never existed (see discussion page there) and not the whole of today’s Austria was part of the HRR – the province of Burgenland used to belong to Hungary. That’s when I stopped reading – someone should rewrite the article. 213.162.66.181 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As you say, this has been discussed before. Those discussions demonstrated that

• the term 'Kingdom of Germany' was used sometimes before thec 15th century
• It is not not uncommon for English-speaking historians to refer to a Kingdom of Germany before the 15th century. If we ignore the above consideration, the term can still be used as a name of convenience. In like manner, historians treat of the 'Byzantine Empire' (it was not called that until modern times, and the Byzantines called themselves Romans) and of the 'Kingdom of Spain' before eighteenth century (before then, the more correct name was the Kingdom of Castille and Aragon'.

The point about Burgenland, if correct, could be interpreted as unhelpful pedantry.

If you believe that HRE of the German Nation was not the official title, edit the article accordingly, with a sound and acceptable source. I suggest you will find that difficult.--Gazzster (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

1) The term „Kingdom of Germany“ was never used – your probably talking about the term “regnum teutonicorum” - the :translation is horrible. Regnum teutonicorum is just an informal term for the regnum francorum orientalium.

Anyway – you would probably agree with me, that the term „Kingdom of Germany“ is very controversial – so I don’t know :why it has to be mentioned in the first sentences of an article of the HRE.

2) Good to know, that you know what unhelpful pedantry is.

3) Difficult? – not really - no reference needed – just look at the original official documents after the late 15th :century (here is a link for the beginning: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/HRR). Most of the time the empire is called HRE :– without “German Nation”.

213.162.66.184 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1) That's not true. The "regnum Francorum orientalium" ist the older name of "regnum Teutonicorum", which was reanamed to "HRR" when Otto I became 962 its first emperor. Pope Gregor VII called 1080 Heinrich IV. "Rex Teutonicorum" (three years bevor Heinrich IV . conquered a city called 'Rom'). So it's not wrong when in English-speaking countries they call it "Kingdom of Germany". Remember: Different countries may also have different name conventions! And the correkt translation of 'regnunm' IS 'kingdom' (there ist nothing horrible about that).

3) The official name is since 1450 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' until now. WITH of the German Nation. The name was i use for over 400 years and it is proofed in the documents regarding this age (even the ones you refered to). That's where Germany and the German language got their names from! You may note like, but nobody will change the history to do you a favour. -- 80.171.98.102 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1) We are talking about official names. Do you know why Pope Gregor VII used the term "regnum Teutonicorum"? Probably not and not really important, the official name was "regnum Francorum orientalium" anyway. 3) You haven’t read the documents. Till the 17th century most of the time the term "HRE" without GN is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.93.2 (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the nomenclature of the HRE is confusing and complicated, just as the Empire itself was. I think it is probably unfair to talk about 'official' titles. After all, what is official? If we would define an official name as one used by an imperial authority, such as the Emperor, the Reichstag, an Elector, etc, we can count a number of'official' names in the course of history. And some titles and names were used at the whim of individual sovereigns, and not for the sake of long-held tradition. That said, I came across this paragraph from a scholarly source:

Throughout the Middle Ages, the convention was that the (elected) king of Germany (a kingdom formed by the division of the empire in 843 and the separation of the western Franconian kingdom in 888) was also Emperor of the Romans. His title was royal (king of the Germans, or from 1237 king of the Romans) from his election to his coronation in Rome by the pope; thereafter, he was emperor. After the death of Frederic II in 1250, however, formal coronation by the pope happened less frequently: Henry VII in 1312, Charles IV in 1355, Sigismund in 1433, Frederick III in 1452, Charles V in 1530. The title of "king of the Romans" became less and less reserved for the emperor-elect but uncrowned in Rome; the emperor-elect was either known as German king or simply styled himself "imperator" (see the example of Ludwig IV below). The reign was dated to begin either from the day of election (Philipp, Rudolf of Habsburg) or the day of the coronation (Otto IV, Heinrich VII, Ludwig IV, Karl IV). The election day became the starting date permanently with Siegmund.

Ultimately, Maximilian I changed the style of the emperor in 1508, with papal approval: after his German coronation, his style was Dei gratia Romanorum imperator electus semper augustus. That is, he was "emperor elect": a term that did not imply that he was emperor-in-waiting or not yet fully emperor, but only that he was emperor by virtue of the election rather than papal coronation (by tradition, the style of rex Romanorum electus was retained between the election and the German coronation). At the same time, the custom of having the heir-apparent elected as king of the Romans in the emperor's lifetime resumed. For this reason, the title king of the Romans (Rex Romanorum, sometimes king of the Germans or Rex Teutonicorum) came to mean heir-apparent, the successor elected while the emperor was still alive.

(emphasis mine)

[[1]]

We could argue styles and titles 'till the cows come home. But the fact remains, English texts habitually refer to the 'Kingdom of Germany' (q.e.d.) and there is no reason why we should not continue that tradition. Especially as the title Rex Germaniae and Rex Teutonicorum has an indisputable historical basis, whether it is 'official' or not.--Gazzster (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the term "Kingdom of Germany" is only controversial on wikipedia, usually provoking opposition from people whose only historical knowledge is modern and who've been taught that Germany was created ex nihil in the late 19th century by Bismark, or else by Germans who've been taught this and who are also surpised by the English usage. As for officialness, pure anachronism. It's not like there was a written constitution or anything. The kingdom is called "Germany" by a factor of several scores more than "Eastern Francia" in medieval sources, and infitinely more than "Holy Roman Empire". If we wanna actually be official (taking the imperial rather than papal document line), it should be Kingdom of the Romans. So either you take medieval usage and modern common usage and call it Germany or Holy Roman Empire, or you take "official"ness and call it Romania. What exactly are we after here, then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The kingdom was known under changing names in medieval times. Regnum teutonicorum, regnum alemanorum, regnum germaniae and so forth were expressions used by chroniclers and kings throughout Europe, also more geografically-based terms were used like Germania, Alamania, Teutonia etc. I find the term "kingdom of Germany" rather convincing if we want to stress that there's a level of a kingdom and one of an empire. Also "Deutschland/Teutschland" and "Teutsches Reich" has been a commonly used expression in early modern times in a political context meaning the empire as a whole or the German part without Italy.--MacX85 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite based on German Wikipedia

It's been pointed out that the article Heiliges Römisches Reich (Holy Roman Empire) in the German Wikipedia is rated as excellent, and that we might do well to translate it here. I'm willing to help, but cannot do the whole thing by myself. Anyone else? And are there objections to proceeding this way? (I see that the Spanish and Russian articles are also highly rated.) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 07:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to avoid being another German supremacist regarding the HRE. Your last two edits are well in step with the narrow propaganda that the HRE is German and nothing else. Your current suggestion is more Germanist dictatorship on the issue. I suppose you view the HRE as 1st of three Reichs? Heil Hitler? Sceptik (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your commentary is pretty silly. The 'Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ' (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, HRRDN) is of course german (even the name proofs that), it was founded by Germanic people and it's part of the German history and a precursor of todays "Federal Republic of Germany". Go, and read some informative books! Jaime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.95.103 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptik was blocked for two weeks because of that remark, apparently the latest in a series of such outbursts. Would any adults care to comment on the translation proposal? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a go. I don't think it's necessary. The article we have is basically sound.It requires constant editing, like every other article on Wikipedia, and it probably does contain some errors, misinterpretations and misleading statements. But we can iron these out. The article at the German site may be excellent, but I don't know how well it would translate. And then there is the question of context. The article here is written in an Anglophonic context; using words and concepts common to and generally understood by English-speakers. If we have a direct German translation this would be lost. As would the English source material.Perhaps Alarob might like to present us with some ideas or statements from the German work that could be considered here.--Gazzster (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, somebody who knows German ought to look through the German article and include any information that it has that's missing from here in this article. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look at the HRE article in the German wiki. I'm an HRE historian and my German is more than passable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rome not included?

The heading of the article says: "Despite its name, the Empire did not include Rome within its borders." This may have been true at certain times, but my copy of Bryce's The Holy Roman Empire New Edition, 1920) has a map of "Europe AD 1189" which clearly shows Rome as included within the Holy Roman Empire. I would propose to correct the article --rossb (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're technically correct. Until the Investiture Controversy the emperors considered that, as protectors of the Roman Church, they had the right to intervene in papal affairs. Which would indicate that Rome was within the borders of the Empire.I have seen maps that include Rome as well. But I have seen others that only go as far as Tuscany and the Marches. And you have Voltaire's statement, 'neither holy, nor Roman'.Grey area I reckon, but it's true that the statement as it stands is not technically correct.--Gazzster (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rome and its surroundings were donated to the Pope by Pepin the Short before the foundation of the Empire. That's the origin of the Papal States (and later the Vatican). Obviously, this state had an ambivalent relation with the Empire, especially in its early days, but as far as I am aware it was independent for all practical purposes. FilipeS (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fascinating topic. I don't think the question of Rome and the Empire was ever satisfactorily resolved. Hence the everlasting conflict between Pope and emperor. Both considered themselves to be the supreme political and religious authority. --Gazzster (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne the first HR Emperor

Didn't Otto the Great, as an Emperor regard himself a successor to the Carolingian "Emperors of the Romans" who reigned only decennia before him? In that regard the HRE could be said to start with Charlemagne's coronation in 800. The HR Emperors even took their regnal numbers from the Carolingian Emperors.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a distinction needs to be made between the Holy Roman Empire identified with Germany, and the Holy Roman Empire identified with the Carolingian empire and its successor states.Even so, as you say, the Emperors claimed a line of continuity with Charles the Great.--Gazzster (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of Otto's claims, there was no Carolingian Holy Roman Emperor. Charlemaigne was never a Holy Roman Emperor, his empire, and that of his sons, was not the HRE. The form and functioning of the HRE was quite distinct from Charlamaign's "Roman Empire" and historians treat them as separate. The motto of the United States is in Latin and it would not have been had the Roman Empire never existed, but this historical link does not mean that the US is a contemporary incarnation of the Roman Empire. Rome left many influences and traces in Europe, in both the Carlingian dynasty and the HRE. Still doesn't make them the same, or one the formal antecedant of the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Otto resurrected the title, and in so doing reinvented it to some extent. But he claimed the same role and title as the papacy had conferred upon Charles the Great and his successors. The proof of that is that Otto and his successors remained dependent upon the Roman Church for that title.--Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know of any notable historian - I mean the kind that publishes in peer-reviewed journals - who consider Charlamagne or the Carolingians to have been part of the Holy Roman Empire, period. That is the issue here. The HRE arguably starts with Otto I, because it was under his rule that it began to take shape in the way we know it. As you say, there is some evidence that Otto himself looked back to Charlemagne as a model, which does not make CHarlamagne an HRE, but means we may need to date the HRE later. There is also evidence, by the way, that the Ottonians looked to the Byzantine Emperors as well. In any case, it was not till later -- AFAIK, not to the Salians, that teh title HRE comes into normal use. So you could say from Otto I to that time was a transitional period. By the way, the Carolingian emperors themselves seldom used the "Roman", preferring merely the title ' Imperator '. Anyway, we can say anything as long as we have a significant view by a notable historian from a reliable source which for me I prefer books published by university presses or peer-reviewed journal articles. I think the place to go into detail on the relationship between Otto I and the Carolingians is if anywhere in the article on Otto I ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Many lists of HR Emperors in all kind of history books begin with Charles I (Charlemagne). He was crowned "Emperor of the Romans" a title that was adopted by his successors in the succesor states of his Empire as well. The most recent of them being German (East Francian) King Arnulf who reigned until 899. In that sense Otto is just one of the German Kings who became Emperor. The title had been carried by Kings of the Middle Realm and France and Germany and Italy since Louis I. It had also been allowed to lapse, but it has lapsed since Otto as well. The Wikipedia article on German monarchs states 'The Holy Roman Empire (although only titled as such much later) started when Charlemagne, King of the Franks and the Lombards was crowned Emperor of the Romans in 800. The Kingdom of Germany started out as the eastern section of the Frankish kingdom, which was split by the Treaty of Verdun in 843. The rulers of the eastern area thus called themselves rex Francorum, king of the Franks, and later just rex. A reference to the "Germans", indicating the emergence of a German nation of some sort, did not appear until the eleventh century'. I don't see how the position that the HRE originated with Charlemagne is so unheard of.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said it is unheard of, in fact I think it is a common popular belief. Nevertheless I continue to wait to see the views of notable historians from reliable sources. Historians mean something very specific by Holy roman Empire, and thje Carolingians were not part of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether Charlemagne should be considered a "Holy Roman" Emperor is really not the main issue here. I accept that strictly speaking he was not. But Charlemagne was the first Germanic emperor in the west. He was the creator of "the Empire" if not the "Holy Roman Empire". That the Holy Roman Emperors considered themselves to be his successors can be clearly seen in their regnal numbers (as has already been pointed out). Perhaps we are drawing more of a distinction between the two empires (Carolingian and HRE) than is warranted, or indeed more of a distinction than was drawn by the HR Emperors themselves (as demonstrated by their choice of regnal numbers). At the very least there should be a line in the introductory paragraph outlining that the HRE's origins lay in the empire created by Charlemagne. Otherwise the reader will get a distorted view, especially if he reads only the first paragraph describing Otto as the first HRE with no mention at all of Charlemagne. I have added the line "The Empire's origins can be traced back to the Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne." to the introductory paragraph. Byzantine74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC). Byzantine74 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Find me a reliable source expressing a significant view. Historians have written reams about how the HRE is distinct from Carolingian empire. Was Charlamagne the first German emperor? Then say so in the article on Charlemagne. But that is neither here nor there as far as this article goes. The Carolingian empireis not the origin or precedent or starting point for the HRE. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But this article isn't about Germany, strange as that may sound. It is about the institution which was we have come to call the Holy Roman Empire.Which wasn't always contiguuous with Germany. Remember, the emperors had claims to universal sovereignty.This raises an interesting problem though. Holy Roman Emperor redirects here. Should there perhaps be a separate article for the title 'Holy Roman Emperor'? That title spans the Kingdom and empire of the Franks, the Frankish successor states, and the Germanic empire.This srticle seems to concern itself only with Germany.--Gazzster (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You say "The Carolingian empire is not the origin or precedent or starting point for the HRE". Of course it is just that. The Imperial title of the west was re created for the Frankish King Charlemagne, and born by ten Frankish kings after him. Kings of the whole or parts of the Frankish Kingdom. These were Carolingian Emperors ruling the whole realm, the western (French) part, the Middle realm and Italy and the Eastern (German) part. Otto was simply the twelfth person in the row of Frankish Kings to become Emperor of the Romans, as the title was then styled.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bew that as it may, regardless of Otto's claims, there was no Carolingian Holy Roman Emperor. Charlemaigne was never a Holy Roman Emperor, his empire, and that of his sons, was not the HRE. The form and functioning of the HRE was quite distinct from Charlamaign's "Roman Empire" and historians treat them as separate. The motto of the United States is in Latin and it would not have been had the Roman Empire never existed, but this historical link does not mean that the US is a contemporary incarnation of the Roman Empire. Rome left many influences and traces in Europe, in both the Carlingian dynasty and the HRE. Still doesn't make them the same, or one the formal antecedant of the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there was a 'Carolingian Holy Roman Empire'.The Crown of the Empire was not invented by the Saxons. It was the same Crown that had been conferred upon the King of the Franks and the various Kings of the Frankish successor states by the Roman Church. True, it lay dormant for some periods, but the same Crown was placed upon the head of Otto by the same power, the Roman Church. Otto did not invent the dignity himself. The exact wording of the title varied, as it did for centuries after Otto. But there is no doubt it was the same title given to Charles I. I'll repeat my suggestion:perhaps 'Holy Roman Emperor' should have its ownn article, since the concept spans across three kinds of states: the Carolongian Empire, the Carolingian successor states, and the Germanic Empire.--Gazzster (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand the history. The fact that the pope conferred the crown does not make it a Holy ROman Empire. The Carolingians simply were not part of the HRE. Charlemagne was not a Holy Roman Emperor. The HRE is not a physical crown, it is an idea combined with a set of institutions that developed after Otto I. No qualified historian supports your claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

'The HRE is not a physical crown, it is an idea'. Precisement, Slrubenstein. That is my point. I think we are moving onto common ground.The concept of the Holy Roman Empire, the Empire of the Romans, or whatever title we wish to give it (and there were many variants from 801-1806)is primarily an idea. Western Europe could not abandon the idea of the Roman Empire. During the Dark ages, the barbarian states continued to pretend it still existed in the West, albeit in a theoretical manner. And when the divide between the Western and Eastern churches became wider, the Bishop of Rome felt it necessary to revive the Western Empire. He found a willing head for the Crown in Charles I the Great of the Franks, who happened to rule most of what was the Western Roman Empire. The Empire the Roman Church had in mind to revive was not a particular state, but the whole of the territory formerly ruled by the Roman Empire. The recreation of the title was not radical, for, in Latin minds, the Empire had never ended. What was radical was the setting up of an Emperor in the West when there was already an emperor in Constantinople.The Crown found its seat in a various places: the Kingdom of the Franks, its successor states, the medieval Germanic state; the dominions of the Archduke of Austria; the united kingdoms of Spain. So the HRE is not contiguous with Germany in particular or any nation. THe Holy Roman Emperor held universal claims. We know this because the Kingdoms of France and England, and others, resisted those claims. So I still maintain that 'Holy Roman Emperor' needs its own article.--Gazzster (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster, if you think that you can write a separate article on Holy Roman Emperor without violating WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, especially WP:SYNTH, go for it!!! To be clear about what I mean about the policies: such an article cannot express your own views, even if those views are based on your having read many books and articles. It must express only significant views expressed in notable, verifiable, and reliable sources. Any interpretation, explanation, or argument must be found - explicitly and in its entirety - in a notable, verifiable and reliable source. You (nor I of course) cannot take one fact from one source, and another fact from another source, and make a claim that seems to follow logically from the two facts, this would violate all our main content policies. In the paragraph above you have made a series of claims and you are also implying that these claims logically lead to certain conclusions about the HR emperor. As long as each claim comes from a notable, verifiable, and reliable source, and the conclusions you suggest about the emporer are stated explicitly in a notable, verifiable and reliable source, we can put all of these things in an article. Can you do this? Do you have the sources? Do the sources you have access to meet our standards? If so - go for it!!! One final bit of advice: NPOV demands that we include all significant views, especially when there are diverging or competing or antagonistic views. If you can write the articel you suggest, I strongly recommend you include any arguments by historians that make contrary claims about the facts or their explanations or interpretations. Otherwise, your work will be vulnerable to a nomination for deletion. Good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire is a fascinating topic. Here are just a few extracts to demonstrate that such a new article could be justified (emphases and comments mine):

‘The imperial role accorded by the pope to Charlemagne in 800 is handed on in increasingly desultory fashion during the 9th century. From 924 it falls into abeyance. But in 962 a pope once again needs help against his Italian enemies. Again he appeals to a strong German ruler. '

'The coronation of Otto I by pope John XII in 962 marks a revival of the concept of a Christian emperor in the west. It is also the beginning of an unbroken line of Holy Roman emperors lasting for more than eight centuries. Otto I does not call himself Roman emperor, but his son Otto II uses the title - as a clear statement of western and papal independence from the other Christian emperor in Constantinople. ' (comment- in other words, setting up an empire with universal claims in contradistinction to the universal claims of the emperor at Constantinople.) [2]

'After severance of its ties with the Byzantine Empire, the papacy nourished dreams of a revivified Western Empire. Some of the popes weighed the possibility of launching such an enterprise and assuming the leadership of the projected state. Lacking any military force or practical administration, and in great danger from hostile Lombards in Italy, the church hierarchy, abandoning the idea of a joint spiritual and temporal realm, seemed to have decided to confer imperial status on the then dominant western European power, the kingdom of the Franks. '

'Despite the dissension within the newly created Western Empire, the popes maintained the imperial organization and the imperial title, mainly within the Carolingian dynasty, for most of the 9th century. The emperors exercised little authority beyond the confines of their dominions, however. After the reign (905¬24) of Berengar I of Friuli, also styled as king of Italy or ruler of Lombardy, who was crowned emperor by Pope John X, the imperial throne remained vacant for nearly four decades. The East Frankish kingdom, or Germany, capably led by Henry I and Otto I, emerged as the strongest power in Europe during this period. Besides being a capable and ambitious sovereign, Otto I was an ardent friend of the Roman Catholic church, as revealed by his appointment of clerics to high office, by his missionary activities east of the Elbe River, and finally by his military campaigns, at the behest of Pope John XII, against Berengar II, king of Italy. In 962, in recognition of Otto's services, John XII awarded him the imperial crown and title.' (Notice, gave him the same crown given to Charles the Great) [3]

So you see, according to these and other sources, there is clearly a continuity perceived as to the title and dignity of Emperor between Charles the Great and Otto. Otto certainly did not invent it. If he did, he certainly would not have made himself dependent upon the Papacy for it. This dependency brought the emperors into conflict with the Popes. So the title Holy Roman Emperor does not exclusively belong to post- Ottonian Germany, as you seem to be suggesting. I believe this is clear enough.--Gazzster (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the research you have done. It still seems to me that you are violating WP:SYNTH in your last statement. This does not mean that your research has no place at Wikipedia. On the contrary, I meant it when I said I appreciate it. It seems to me that you are saying that there is a long, though not always continuous, history of relations between a German Emperor and the Pope. For a long period of time this relationship settled into "Holy Roman Emperor" but during long periods of time it took other forms, and there were some times when the relationship was weak. I certainly see a place for discussing this, perhaps in an article concerning German history in the middle ages, or Church history in the middle ages, or both. I really do see room for discussion of the varied relationships between German Emperors and Popes. But you reallllllllllly have to be careful not to violate WP:SYNTH Please do not respond that the connections are obvious. SYNTH exists precisely because connections that are obvious to us cannot go into Wikipedia articles. That's the whole point! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the honesty. But I don’t see how any of the policies to refer to applies.First I’ll restate what I’m saying.

‘’The title of Emperor in the West after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was resurrected by the Roman Church and conferred upon various rulers from Charles the Great top Francis II. It was associated with the Frankish lands and their successor states before it came to be associated almost exclusively with the dominions of Otto I and his successors. In medieval times the title had implications of universality not confined to Germany. ‘’

Now, WP:SYNTH; ‘Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.’

Your restatement does not claim that Charlemagne or any of the Carolingians were Holy Roman Emperors. Nor does it claim that any of the Carolingians were emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. So it just is not relevant to this article or any article on Holy Roman Emperors. It is as simple as that. None of the sources you provide claim that Charlemagne was a Holy Roman Emperor or that he or the Carolingians reigned over the HRE. It is as simple as that. As to your research more generally, I have already said I value it. As I said, you long ago convinced me as to the merit of an article exploring the relationship between German emperors and the Pope, or making this a section of some other article. Just not one on the Holy Roman Emperor. These are pretty simple pooints, I do not see how you can fail to understand them. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am quite content with the fact that historians consider the HRE and Charlemagne's empire as distinct, and I will not argue against this. However, it seems obvious to me that Charlemagne merits at least some mention in the article, for at least two reasons: one, the belief or idea that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor and/or founder of the HRE is widespread, so that idea should be rebuffed (or qualified) in the article, if possible with a reliable source. Second, a connection or a parallel is often drawn between the two, and the two links I have given are among numerous examples of this: one page states "The Holy Roman Empire only becomes formally established in the next century. But it is implicit in the title adopted by Charlemagne in 800" (emphasis mine), so I'm not the one drawing a conclusion here, in making a connection; the other states that "in the Holy Roman Empire [Charlemagne] restored the Western Empire, extinct since 476" which provides a source for the fact that the idea of Charlemagne as founder of the HRE is, if wrong, extant. So, if you are not happy with my description of Charlemagne's role (or non-role), rephrase, but don't delete. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss

I appreciate the honesty. But I don’t see how any of the policies to refer to applies.First I’ll restate what I’m saying.

‘’The title of Emperor in the West after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was resurrected by the Roman Church and conferred upon various rulers from Charles the Great top Francis II. It was associated with the Frankish lands and their successor states before it came to be associated almost exclusively with the dominions of Otto I and his successors. In medieval times the title had implications of universality not confined to Germany. ‘’

Now, WP:SYNTH; ‘Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.’

The assumption of original research seems to me, if I may point out, on your own part. I have quoted sources that support what I am saying.And if you'll look back at this page, other editors beside myself have questioned the passing over of the Frankish emperors. In fact I believe they were originally in the article. You seem to think that the thread of logic I use to connect them is some sort of sophistry. Do you deny that the dignity of Emperor that Otto claimed was the same dignity conferred upon Charles the Great? If so, I believe it is encumbant upon you to defend that position, rather than dismiss what is sourceable and repeated by any number of encyclopedias. I would suggest that it is your contrary opinion that is original research. But by all means, let us argue the point. For that is precisely what these discussion pages are for.

WP:V: Indeed I have shown sources. And can show more if you wish. I have not seen, I might suggest, any sources offered by you to state that the title belonged only to Otto and his successors.

WP:NOR: How is my research original? You could prove it original by proving the opposite. But you haven’t. You have only stated a position.

WP:NPOV; Again, I don’t see how it is not neutral.

I’d enjoy getting into a proper discussion about this topic (like I say, that’s what these pages are for). But I find these suggestions of violating policy that are not backed up not helpful at all.--Gazzster (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not think that I had written that what you wrote violated NPOV or V. Did I say that you violated them? You ask how they are relevant ... well, they are relevant to all articles, and if you are going to write a new one I am just saying to bear them in mind. NPOV .... well, here is how it applies: when writing a new article, try to provide multiple views i.e. views that disagree with one another (and especially seek to include views you agree with). I hope i am not patronizing you, this is kind of old hat advice around Wikipedia but I always think all of us should bear it in mind. As for what I think about Otto or the subject, it does not matter, because we keep our own views out of the article. My comments are on the article, not on the subject itself which is a matter of research for professional historians and such. SYNTH is an issue if you seek to connect two sources to make another point. None of the sources you provided say that Charlemagne was a Holy Roman Emperor or reigned over the Holy Roman Empire. As long as you do not make this claim about him or the Carolingians you are safely complying with NOR as far as I can tell. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Isn't Nazi Germany supposed to be the Third Reich? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.30.123 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a name the Nazi leadership gave to Germany in order to affect some continuity with the medieval empire. But of course, this continuity was purely invented.--Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Nazi's sucked and were terribly wrong, but Nazi Germany and it's allies' size once exceeded that of the Holy Roman Empire at one point. Doesn't that, coupled with the affirmation by Nazi leadership and the fact that this area was the base of the HRE mean something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaunula13 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it means something. But, and forgive me if I've not been following, exactly what changes to the article are you suggesting? -- Jao (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I supposed the first post was suggesting a continuity between the First and Third Reichs (I realise the post was not extolling the claim or glorifying the Nazis). I don't think any edit is suggested.

I feel that as a preemptive move, we should list Nazi Germany as a successor of the Holy Roman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombielegoman (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I feel uncomfortable with all this 'successor state' stuff. West Germany, East Germany, and modern united Germany are 'successor' states. But isn't it like saying Fred Blogs the adult is the 'successor' of Fred Blogs the child? In other words: same country, different names.--Gazzster (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, Zombielegoman. But when we list "succeeded by" like that, we mean immediately succeeded by. So from this infobox, you can indeed click forward to get to Nazi Germany, only it takes (as it should) a number of steps, like for instance:

Confederation of the Rhine → German Confederation → North German Confederation → German Empire → Weimar Republic → Nazi Germany; or

Austrian Empire → Austria–Hungary → German Austria → First Austrian Republic → Nazi Germany

The point in this infobox is listing what states took over the territory of the HRE when it disbanded, not listing all states that ever existed in that territory. -- Jao (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia procedure, I agree with Jao. On building a better article, we simply have to rely on our core policies: if there is a significant viewa among notable historians found in a reliable source that says the HRE was the 2nd reich, a successor to the first and precursor of the third, we should include it, but it has to meet our NPOV and V and RS thresholds first. It is not for us to decide what was the second or third reich or even whether these phrases mean anything/refer to anything that exists. The only thing we have to decide is, is it a reliable source, is it notable and significant. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed – although this would be the First Reich, not the Second; the Second was the German Empire. These facts are included prominently in the lead of the Nazi Germany article, where this history/mythology/propaganda/POV is highly relevant. In this article, it could perhaps, at most, be mentioned in passing in some kind of "Legacy" section. -- Jao (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We would also have to be very careful to distinguish Nazi views from the views of academic historians. The former are obviously relevant to the article on the Nazis but I do not think are in and of themselves relevant to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Title of Emperor not exclusively German.

The title of Emperor had significance beyond Germany. The article doesn't adequately discuss this, and treats it as an exclusively German institution. The continuity with Charles the Great is, I believe, too lightly passed over.As are the claims of universal sovereignty (and not just over Germany).

From the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia:

'Realm of varying extent in medieval and modern western and central Europe. Traditionally believed to have been established by Charlemagne…. reign of the German Otto I (the Great; r. 962 – 973), who revived the imperial title after Carolingian decline, is also sometimes regarded as the beginning of the empire…. name Holy Roman Empire (not adopted until the reign of Frederick I Barbarossa) reflected Charlemagne's claim that his empire was the successor to the Roman Empire…… the empire's core consisted of Germany, Austria, Bohemia, and Moravia. Switzerland, the Netherlands, and northern Italy sometimes formed part of it; France, Poland, Hungary, and Denmark were initially included, and Britain and Spain were nominal components….. [4]

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

'The Holy Roman Empire was a successor state to the empire founded in 800 by Charlemagne (see also Carolingians), who revived the title of Roman emperor in the West. According to Carolingian theory, the Roman Empire had merely been suspended, not ended, by the abdication of the last Roman emperor in 476. In 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Roman emperor, probably perceived more as a personal title than as a reference to a particular territorial rule'. (ibid)

Note that it states the title of Emperor was a title, rather than attached to a particular territory, ie., Germany. Which is further borne out by:

'The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar; hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom. Actually, the power of the emperor never equaled his pretensions. Although the emperors were accorded diplomatic precedence over other rulers, their suzerainty early ceased over France, S Italy, Denmark, Poland, and Hungary; and their control over England, Sweden, and Spain was never more than nominal. The authority of the emperors in Italy and Germany was sometimes nonexistent, sometimes real. (Ibid)

James Bryce, on the universal claims of the Emperor:

Why, it may well be asked, seeing that the Roman crown made the Emperor ruler of the whole habitable globe, was it thought necessary for him to add to it minor dignities which might be supposed to have been already included in this supreme one? The reason seems to be that the imperial office was conceived of as something different in kind from the regal, and as carrying with it not the immediate government of any particular kingdom, but a general suzerainty over and right of controlling all. Of this a pertinent illustration is afforded by an anecdote told of Frederick Barbarossa. Happening once to inquire of the famous jurists who surrounded him whether it was really true that he was 'lord of the world,' one of them simply assented, another, Bulgarus, answered, 'Not as respects ownership.'In this dictum, which is evidently conformable to the philosophical theory of the Empire, we have a pointed distinction drawn between feudal sovereignty, which supposes the prince original owner of the soil of his whole kingdom, and imperial sovereignty which is irrespective of place, and exercised not over things but over men, as God's rational creatures. [5]

If we may trust our own Wikipedia:

'In the Middle Ages, the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor were the universal powers. Both were struggling for the so-called Dominium mundi or world dominium'. [[6]]

Again, from Bruce: The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel) upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of A.D. 800. But a revival is always more or less a revolution: the one hundred and fifty years that had passed since the death of Charles had brought with them changes which made Otto's position in Germany and Europe less commanding and less autocratic than his predecessor's. With narrower geographical limits, his Empire had a less plausible claim to be the heir of Rome's universal dominion; and there were also differences in its inner character and structure sufficient to justify us in considering Otto (as he is usually considered by his countrymen) not a mere successor after an interregnum, but rather a second founder of the imperial throne in the West. [7]

I note the suggestion that the revival of the Empire by Otto can be regarded as a founder of the imperial dignity. I also note, however, that Bryce clearly sees the theoretical continuity between Charles and Otto. And he notes the universal claims of the imperial title.I invite discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I note the Bryce is dated 1901. There have been huge changes in the profession of history, and real advances in our understandings of the middle Ages, just in the past 30 years. I'd give more weight to recent research in peer-reviewed journals. In the meantime, we can certainly note that Bryce held certain views at the turn of the 20th century. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Doubt Bryce if you will. But he was only one of a number of sources. Both the Britannica and Columbia are standard encyclopedias of high repute.--Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And your idea of researching an encyclopedia article is ... to copy other encyclopedia articles? Okay, let's save everyone a lot of time and just tell people to read Britannica or Columbia? The only advantages we have over them is that (1) we can be updated at any time, so we can keep current with the most recent research published in peer-reviewed journals or by academic presses and (2) we are paperless so we can go into more detail about any debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of quoting those encyclopedia's is (obviously) to demonstrate that the idea of the historical a revived Roman Empire in the West with universal claims is one that is widely held. While encyclopedias are of course not essays, those of the calibre of Britannica and Columbia do represent scholarly views. They are researched soundly. And this, again, is obvious. You object to Bryce because he's old. You object to encyclopedias because they are not historical essays. May I suggest, in the interests of a balanced discussion, that you offer some sources that disprove what mine clearly state?--Gazzster (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, the Brittanica article merely states that people believed Charlemagne to have established the HRE, which is not the same thing as claiming that he did. The Columbia Encyclopedia merely states that the HRE came after Charlemagne's empire, which no one contests. The fact remains that Charlemagne never called himself, and was never called, by any of his contemporaries, Holy Roman Emperor. Moreover, the fact continues to remain that the HRE was different in organization and functioning from the Carolingian empire. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto never called himself Holy Roman Emperor either. Nor did any of his successors until 1254.You're looking at this too narrowly. I'm talking about the concept of the revival of the Western Empire. The title Emperor was revived, and whatever specific names and organising principles was attached to it, the fact remains, the German emperors were conscious of a continuity with the dignity that Charles the Great claimed.Frederick II was certainly aware of this when he dedicated the tomb of Charlemagne in 1215.--Gazzster (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your point - I just think it is part of a story about German or European history, and belongs in a different, or different, articles(s). I do think this article should focus on the HRE - if that is narrow, it is because there is a limit to what any article can be about. HRE refers both to a name and to that that name refers to. While Otto did not call himself Holy Roman Emperor, most historians see him as beginning the dynasty and the practices and institutions that mark the emergence of the Holy Roman Empire, which makes mention of Otto (despite being HRE) salient to an article on the HRE. Charlemagne's empire was organized in a very different way than the HRE, which is why I and other editors have left him and the Carolingians out of this article. That does not mean there is no place in Wikipedia for a discussion of the complex history of this region in EUrope that started as a frontier between the Roman Empire and the German tribes. That story includes Charlemagne and the HRE and I agree is a fascinating story - but it is a "wider" focus than this article, and the story should be told elsewhere. I hope I am being clear that I am not in any way opposed to an article that would explore the point you are making, I just think it would not be an article called "Holy Roman Empire," it would be called something else. Have you read Otis Mitchell's Two German crowns: monarchy and empire in medieval Germany? It is very good, and directly speaks to your point. It would be great to have an article that draws on his research, and the research of others (much of which you clearly know). But that would be a different article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HRE and the Romans

Did the HRE claim to represent historical continuity with the Roman Empire, a la Hadrian, Julius Caeser, etc.? BillMasen (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

kind of yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Forerunner of HRE

Gro-Tzen made a good faith edit but I removed the reference to Charlamagne because the sources provided are not reliable by our standards. One is from a web-site that has no scholarly credentials, the other by a 19th century politician who wrote history, but not to the standards of contemporary history. Just as in other fields, works of history often become out-dated. Charlemagne's empire is certainly very noatable in European history, but it was not a forerunner of the HRE. The organizational structure of the HRE, the status and role of the emperor, were quite different and I do not think any contemporary historian questions this. If someone could provide as a source an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book published by an academic press, from the last forty years, I would accept that as a reliable and notable source. But I have failed to find any - the history books currently assigned in university courses provide a much more complex story about the formation of the HRE and Charlemagne is not a notable part of that story. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That German or French nationalists want to draw a line from Charlamagne doesn't rise to the standards we should have in encyclopedia articles. Scholarship advances with time. I know of no academic historians - acknowledged experts on the topic, with credentials and a record of accepted research, should be an encyclopedic standard. Find peer-reviewed journal articles or books published by academic presses from the last forty years that support this claim and we can put it in. Some people believe God created all species in six days - we do not put this in the Evolution article. Some people believe spacemen built the pyramids - we do not put this in an article on Egyptian history. Reliable notable sources for significant views are our threshold for inclusion - and in an article on a historical topic, it should be from historians. And not historians from over a hundred years ago - the whole point of Wikipedia is it can do a better job than other encylopedias of keeping up with cutting edge research. There are plenty of historians today researching Charlamagne or the HRE. I can't find any of them who say C. forshadowed or was a precursur to the HRE but if you can, swell. But let's use real mainstream research by qualified historians, work that made it through peer-review. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The pages may not be reliable sources to show that Charlemagne is the/a forerunner of the HRE, but that is not what my sentence said, I said he is sometimes considered as such, and my sources certainly show that. If "is sometimes considered" is still not right, then say "has sometimes formerly and erroneously been considered", I don't care—but say something. If you find it better to write "contrary to what was formerly thought and remains in popular belief, Charlemagne has nothing whatsoever do to with the HRE", that is completely fine with me. Another useful sentence might be "19th century historiography claimed a continuity between the Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire" (found on the page about the Holy Roman Emperor). I'll go with anything.

But Charlemagne must be mentioned somehow because it is a very common confusion that he was the founder of the HRE, and we can find plenty of proofs of that (i.e., that this confusion exists and is common: Encarta states that the HRE was "founded by Charlemagne in ad 800"; this page states that Charlemagne was "King of the Franks and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"; this one states that "The coronation [of Charlemagne] was the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. Though Charlemagne did not use the title, he is considered the first Holy Roman emperor"; the list goes on and on). Wikipedia has got to clear up this confusion somehow! I don't care how you do it, I'm willing to acknowledge your superior expertise, but please do it somehow. (And do it on other articles than this one, too, because the pages for Charlemagne and Holy Roman Emperor might have similar problems.)

Wikipedia does mention incorrect beliefs sometimes, in fact, it does so frequently. For example, since you yourself mentioned the page on evolution, well, it does say "there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions and who raise various objections to evolution"; and the article on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques has an entire section on crackpot "alternative" theories (IMHO this is way too much and the section is very biased, but it's still right and useful to mention that some people have crackpot ideas about pyramids). Of course, it is quite difficult to give reliable sources for an erroneous belief (unless it is of so high profile that entire articles have been written about the error itself). I think common sense says we can just provide a link to Encarta + perhaps another one (one by a 19th century historian?), to show that the mistake exists and existed, and then to dispel it you can provide some modern reliable article with a chronology of the HRE which shows it starting in 962.

So, I'll let you write a sentence which you consider acceptable, if you don't then I'll write one, and if you simply revert that then we have to go through litigation, but I hope it won't come to that. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your responding to my comment, but I do not like ultimata, or threats of litigation. Do you always insist on having your way, immediately? I would like to discuss this with you in good faith and civily, but I do not like editors who make threats, especially when they are unnecessary.

I will make one edit right now, I am all for including multiple points of view. But the use of any source, even of a fringe or nachronistic view, usually needs to be placed in context. My point was not at all critical of your intention, only saying that before we address this point we need to have more to say about the context for the dispute or change in view.

But there is a larger issue in here that I have raised and you seem to ignore. Encyclopedia articles should provide an account of all significant views found in reliable and notable sources (this is in our NPOV policy). A big problem is that this article was writen before we had a cite sources policy, and I (who by the way is not a principal contributor to this article, my edits hav been relatively minor but I knew the editors who did most of the research for this and I respect it) am no longer near the library where I borrowed the books on the HRE that I consulted. Historians really are as rigorous as scholars in other areas, such as the physical sciences. And there really are articles in peer-reviewed journals on the HRE. My philosophy about creating, building up, and editing any wikipedia article is always the same, and simple: find the most notable and reliable sources, and use them. This requires real research - not just surfing the web (as many editors all over Wikipedia do) but going to or accessing a good library, and sometimes reading many scholars in order to understand what is mainstream and what is fringe. I just do not have any sources handy that talk about Charlemagne at all. I am not saying that this is a reason for not mentioning Charlemagne... I am saying that until I read the reliable and notable sources, I do not know what to say. Remember, we wikipedia editors NEVER put our own views in articles, only significant views from notable and reliable sources. Do you have access to a good public or university library? Can you check the major peer-reviewed journals in medieval European history? Once we have those sources, then we can cite them. I once took out from the library, Otis Mitchell's Two German crowns: monarchy and empire in medieval Germany but I returned it and that was in another state. Now you come around with an interest in the HRE - do you own the book? Why not draw on scholarly books to add content?

Now, if we had notable reliable scholarly sources on this matter, I would consider creating in the history section perhaps a new section called "The Roman Empire" and say something about how the Empire fell, but left two institutions - the Church and the idea of a Roman Empire, that influenced German and other tribes, Charlamagne's empire being one example, and the later HRE being another example. I cannot write this because I do not have any books on my but you seem to care more about the HRE, maybe you have books like Boullough and Chamberlain and McKitterich on Charlemaigne, Beat Kümin on the HRE, and many other recent work. My point is: our edits should come out of the best research on the best sources. Until we have done that research, it may be better not to write anything. But if you have done more research or wish to do this research, that would be great! I wouldn't want any "litigation" whatever that means, I would be all in support of you!

Or, we could have a section on "historical debates" or "controversies" and I am sure there have been more debates besides the Carolingian antecedents. But we could address it in such a section.

But I would not put it in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should introduce the aricle as a whole, focusing on matters of scholarly consensus. Let's address fringe views elsewhere in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk

Obviously the Empire as it developed after Otto was something of a new beast from Charlemagne's empire. But the idea that the two had no more connection with each other than either did with the old Western Roman Empire seems very problematic. The problem here is that the "Holy Roman Empire" wasn't exactly a state at all. It was the title of Emperor granted by the Pope combined with rule of Germany. Only the combination of those things appeared first in 962 - the title went back to 800, the German state to 843. There were even previous German rulers who were crowned Emperor (Charles the Fat, Arnulf) - it's just that Otto made the connection a permanent one. As to sources, there are certainly more recent sources than James Bryce which consider the roots of the Holy Roman Empire to go back to Charlemagne. The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, from 1952, states, for instance:

Yet at the time the Pope's act, as if by inspiration, well expressed the theocratic nature of Charlemagne's monarchy. He was the new David, the Lord's Anointed, chosen to guide the Christian people in the City of God on earth, and this imprint the new Empire of the West and its subsequent development, the Holy Roman Empire, never lost.

And later:

In this way Otto re-created the Empire of the West, or the Holy Roman Empire to give it its later style, which was to be the central fact of Europe for centuries. It was compounded of Germany and the Regnum Italicum and of the pre-eminent secular dignity of Roman Emperor. Resting on the tradition of Charlemagne, it was really new.

Otto has created something new, but which ties back to what Charlemagne did. Also, looking up books on the Holy Roman Empire on Amazon, I come across this, by Friedrich Heer, which apparently goes back to Charlemagne. I think some mention of Charlemagne in the introduction is warranted. john k (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne is mentioned in the history section and I would have no objection to clarifying the position of historians in regard to the history of the HRE as a set of institutions and as a set of ideas. But I don't think any notable historian claims Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor or ruled over the HRE so I think it is best to leave discussion to the body of the article. If we mention Charlemagne in the lead, we may as well also mention the Byzantine Empire, which was also an influence on Otto, moreso than Charlemagne. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History basically says that the Holy Roman Empire was the "subsequent development" of Charlemagne's "new Empire of the West." That's not quite saying Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor, but it's fairly close. Heer's history of the Holy Roman Empire apparently begins with Charlemagne (so, obviously, did Bryce's, although that's very old). Are there any sources which suggest that the Holy Roman Empire began with Byzantium? Even if this identification tends to be made in older sources, it's still significant. And what's the basis for the claim that the Byzantine Empire was more of an influence on Otto than Charlemagne? Byzantine emperors didn't tend to get crowned in Rome by the Pope. Even if we take Otto as founding a new state, Charlemagne's coronation in Rome is clearly the model and precursor to it, and because of that should be mentioned. Furthermore, even if viewing Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor is somewhat old fashioned, I don't see how it can be viewed as any more wrong than viewing Otto as the first. "Holy Roman Empire" is a term which was not used until several centuries after Otto's death. Deciding how to define the term for periods long before it was actually used is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of right or wrong. Saying that the key thing that defines someone as a "Holy Roman Emperor" is being crowned by the Pope and starting with Charlemagne is no less valid than any other starting point - it just means that the term is being defined differently. john k (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

John, of course there are other sources, why else would I have mentioned it? Are you questioning my good faith? Yesterday you wrote a post responding to a longer post by me ... didn't you even read my post, to which you were responding?

Yes, it is in one (or more) of the books I mention in my post, above, to which you first respond. I am afraid any of those books any more, I have moved and don't have access to the same library. Otto's being crowned by th Pope may well have been of Charlemagne, but the books I read were more intterested in the structure of the HRE and attempts by Otto and his successors to develop bureaucratic apparatuses. The HRE is a lot more than a name and a coronation ritual, and the works I mention above go into these other matters. But I am not a specialist in this and frankly do not remember, I am sorry I did not add more information and that I di dnot provide proper citations but like I said that was another age in Wikipedia. I wish there were another editor who could take the time to read those books and more recent articles on research into the HRE. I couldn't find any significant historian writing recently who claimed that Charlemagne was the first HRE, as several people writing on this talk page claim and as many editors have added to the article. Frankly these historians were simply more interested in other issues. But I dmit that this is my own view of Wikipedia: that its articles should educate readers on what current scholarship is interested in and why. I am sorry i didn't do a better job when I had access to the right books but I wish someone else would do a search of the best journals to get the cutting edge research and also look at the latest books to come out of university presses. I do not knock the one source you are using but surely there are better books and articles by a larger group of historians we should draw on them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't questioning good faith at all, just looking for more context as to what exactly you meant. At any rate, the subject "Who was the first Holy Roman Emperor" is one which has simply not been of particular interest to most recent historians, as you say. Furthermore, it is an inherently subjective one, because there simply isn't a clear-cut answer to the question. It's not as though recent historians discovered that whereas we previously thought Charlemagne called himself Holy Roman Emperor, it turns out that the title was first used by Otto I - neither of them called themselves or the state they ruled that. I'll add that I'm perfectly content that the "Holy Roman Empire" did not start with Charlemagne - Charlemagne's empire was a different state than Otto's, although the two were related (and much more closely related than either of them was tothe Byzantines). But the idea that Charlemagne is traditionally considered the first Holy Roman Emperor seems totally legitimate, especially since in issues like this matters of tradition are at least as important as what modern scholars say. I'd say that this is much more of a judgment call than Kingdom of Scotland, where with very little clear basis the article contends the kingdom was founded at the traditional date in 843 (although I'm sure this has been disputed). I do think that 962 should probably be given as the opening date in this article, simply because "Holy Roman Empire" is not the same thing as "Holy Roman Emperor." But the latter is an important concept, and Charlemagne's place as Otto's predecessor is worthy of mention. john k (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Otto I vs. Charlemagne

I don't fully understand the extent of the controversy over the statement that Otto I was crowned emperor in 962, for which a citation was requested. A Google Books search gave me dozens of viewable sources for the fact. I searched "Otto crowned 962", with an exact search of "Holy Roman Empire," and narrowed the dates to 1940 to present. But if one substitutes "Charlemagne crowned 800", there are dozens to support that claim too. I don't think you're going to get anywhere arguing about which is "true"; I think you have to focus on stating clearly why this discrepancy exists; presumably it has to do with different definitions of "Holy Roman Empire." Not Wikipedia's job to resolve what the specialists can't, but to state the nature of the problem. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Amen. I think it is quite frankly bizarre that Charlemagne is not mention in the context of the HRE, while every reputable source does.--Gazzster (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The HR emperors themselves seemed to think Charlemagne and his heirs were their predescessors because they adopted the appropriate regnal numbers. That of course doesn't mean that the notion that the empire of Otto was somehow a different historical animal than the empire of Charlemagne should not have some truth in it also. The different views may concern different topics and should not be considered mutually exclusive. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes.This article is not only treating of Germany before 1806. It is also dealing with a concept, the revived Western Empire, which is a conceptual continuity between the reigns of Charlemagne and Francis II. Political theory in the Middle Ages regarded the emperor as the first of the princes of Europe. He had theoretically sovereignty over all Christendom. Though, of course, most nations acknowledged that sovereignty as purely theoretical. This important concept must at least be acknowledged in the article. --Gazzster (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne should be mentioned in the context of the article, but technically he ruled a different covering different territory (his territory included France, which the HRE mostly didn't include).

We make the mistake of thinking that the HRE was just a state.It was that, but much more. It was a political concept. It was a concept with a direct continuity with Charles the Great. In terms of practical power, the Emperor ruled only central Europe. But he was acknowledged as the ruler of all Christendom, just as the Pope was acknowledged as ruler of the Western Church.Yes, even the French acknowledged this.--Gazzster (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is kind of an English-speaking problem... The title "Holy Roman Emperor" has never existed and is totally uncommon in German. We say "römisch-deutscher Kaiser" = "roman-german Emperor" which makes it pretty clear that it's a combination of the title of the Roman emperor and the German king. Charlemagne is mostly regarded as "Roman emperor" or "Roman-frankish emperor". The name "Holy Roman Empire" is an invention of the 13th century. It's traditionally connected with the empire Otto I. created when he bound Italy to the German kingdom. Charlemagne's empire is always called "Frankenreich" in German, nothing more.--MacX85 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In English, though, the Holy Roman Empire is at least sometimes used to refer to Charlemagne's empire. I think this article is correct to largely begin with Otto in 962. But, as I said before, I think Charlemagne definitely deserves mention in the intro. john k (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is mentioned later in the body, which I am fine with. Inb fact, i think the article needs a better general discussion of the scholarchip on different sources of legitimacy for different kinds of politics in he centuries following the collapse of the Western Empire, as context (such a discussion would make clearer the position of Charlemagne). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps a section that discusses the history of the idea that the Western Roman empire was resurrected with the Frankish and Germanic emperors.--Gazzster (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But from what I have read, it is important to point out that the Church and the idea of "Rome" were distinct sources of legitimacy although they often overlapped. There is also the question of whether people actually believed that the Roman Empire had ended, there is a diference between believing one is the legitimate heir to the last emperor, versus restoring the empire, versus invoking it as an idea. Finally, we have to be clear to distinguish between symbols of legitimation, and actual political structures and institutions. The United Statres can claim to be the heir to Greek democracy, and even draw on Greek architecture in its most important buildings (and statues of founding fathers dressed in togas). That is very different from saying that the US resurrected Pericles' Greece. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that in Charlemagne's time it was not believed that the Roman Empire had ended, and that he considered himself quite properly the Roman emperor, and the successor to Augustus and Charlemagne by proper succession. It is not a coincidence that he was crowned at a time when a woman was reigning in Constantinople. After that, the various emperors crowned at Rome all saw themselves as Charlemagne's successors. It is not the same thing as the fads for the trappings of Roman Republicanism (not so much Athenian democracy) among the American founding fathers or the French revolutionaries. Anyway, what's definitely lacking here is any discussion on any of our parts of actual sources, so perhaps that is what we should be looking for. john k (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that before 800 there was an emperor in Constantinople, the legal and moral successor of Caesar Augustus. And Charles knew this. The years in Western Europe were measured as such:'such a year, in the reign of the Emperor N., meaning the emperor in Constantinople. This empire did not end until 1453. The Papacy resurrected the Western empire, making a distinction between Rome and Constantinople intended to enhance its own power and to distance itself from the authority of Constantinople. Sure, this was a fiction. But the importance here is not the credibility or veracity of the claim. Rather, the concept, which played an important role in European history until 1806 (and beyond), is important, and needs to be discussed.I'm glad we're finally having this discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the 1648 map

The map of the Empire in 1648 has some mistakes that ought to be corrected if possible.

1. Broadly speaking, we don't seem to have any markings for the boundaries between various ecclesiastical states
2. The territory marked as the Archbishopric of Magdeburg also includes the Bishopric of Halberstadt
3. Those two territories should be colored the same color as the Prussian territories
4. Fulda was still an abbacy, not a bishopric, in 1648
5. There's no such thing as the "Duchy of Saxony." That area should be marked as "Saxon Duchies"
6. The Bishopric of Lübeck and the Bishopric of Osnabrück are not colored as ecclesiastical states, even though they were such (Lübeck had protestant prince-bishops all the time, and Osnabrück half the time, but both were still ecclesiastical principalities)
7. The County of Oldenburg is colored in, but Holstein-Glückstadt, which was also held by the King of Denmark, is not.
8. Savoy is treated as being outside the Empire, when in fact it had voices in the Council of Princes and the Upper Rhenish Circle, making it an exclave of the Empire.
9. No border between Carinthia and Carniola between Venice and the big ecclesiastical territory
10. Use of some archaic-in-English French names for German cities (Treves, Mayence, Aix-la-Chapelle), sometimes while using the German names for the states named for them (Trier, Mainz) - this is not don with Regensburg/Ratisbon, which is called "Regensburg" throughout.

I also have some broader issues with the fact that we don't color in the lands of some of the cadet branches (and occasionally the senior branches) of major old princely families. Specifically, Lorraine, the two Baden margraviates, Hesse-Darmstadt, all of the Brunswick-Lüneburg duchies, the Holstein duchies, the Mecklenburg duchies, the lands of the junior Palatinate lines (Neuburg, Sulzbach, Zweibrücken), and probably some others, are not colored in. john k (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Latin name

Why the (to me, curious) word order Imperium Romanum Sacrum? In classical Latin, the preferred word order would be like that, but afaik, historically it was usually called Sacrum Romanum Imperium (directly mimicking the German name). Varana (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The best thing here would be to find sources and examples. If you're right, I agree that we should change it. john k (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose, I am not a fan of bastardized names overriding proper originals, even if they are used more often now due to modern language usage of adjectives. If you intend to do so and you want to change the wording then change also the language from Latin to 'vulgar Latin' or something more to the point. IEEE (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First Reich

Redirects here. I do not know my German history but was it ever known as the first reich (or as the reich?) during the time that it was known as the holy roman empire? Or was it called that by defauly after the Second reiche became a common name? Would it be necessary to then place this term somewhere in the article? I.e. mention that "the holy roman empire" is technically the first reiche but not called so during that period of time etc. etc.? Cheers!

Update: I looked at the German version of this article and what do you know Reich = Empire! Apologies!Calaka (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source for it right now, but as far as I recall the numbering was first used during the Nazi regime to imply some continuity, but neither of what we call today the first or the second empire would have called themselves by that name.

On a side note, the german word "Reich" is a bit tricky to translate. Literally it simply means 'domain', so an empire (as the emperor's domain) would be called "Kaiserreich". Similarly, a kingdom (as a king's domain) is a "Königreich". There is no german word that directly mirrors 'empire' except the original latin "Imperium", but in german the words "Imperium" and "Kaiserreich" (although technically they are equivalent) carry quite different connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.248.203 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-NPOV Issue

The article currently refers to "the heresy of the Hussites." I am pretty sure that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on religious disputes, and is not supposed to describe any religious group as "heretical." 72.83.164.219 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

um, the context is late medieval Europe. It wouldn't make sense to describe it as nastika. It was de facto a heresy, this has nothing to do with being biased against the Hussites. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Germany

This articles doubles as our medieval Germany article (redirects here). This is unfortunate for two reasons,

• the HRR is not essentially "medieval". Its medieval history just accounts for the first two thirds of its duration (say 950-1500), which also includes the entire Early Modern period (which for Germany is covered at Early Modern Germany)
• the HRR is not exclusively about the history of Germany, as this article is well aware, the territory of modern Germany accounts for just about half of the territory of the HRR.

But perhaps a better solution than creating a standalone medieval Germany article might be beginning {{main}} articles to the "High Middle Ages" and "Late Middle Ages" in this article. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital?

Did the Empire actually have one? Otto I chose Magdeburg for his residence, his successors moved from Kaiserpfalz to Kaiserpfalz, the Luxembourg Emperors resided at Prague (ano!), the Habsburgs at Vienna (Rudolf II again at Prague Castle). The rex romanorum was elected at Frankfurt and crowned at Aachen, the Emperor was crowned at Rome and later also at Frankfurt. The office of a German Chancellor was held by the Archbishop of Mainz, while the Archbishops of Cologne (with his residence at Bonn) and of Trier (with his residence at Koblenz) were Italian and Burgundian Chancellors resp. From 1663 on the Reichstag diets were held at Regensburg, while the Imperial Chamber Court was located at Frankfurt, Augsburg, Esslingen, Nuremberg, Regensburg, Worms, Speyer and Wetzlar. In any case the parvenupolis Berlin had never been much more than the puny residence of the Brandenburg margraves. 92.225.110.50 (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a constructive point - can you work this into the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dominion

Zsero asks what the word "dominion" means. It means sovereignty. I wish you would look up words in the dictionary before deleting ones you do not understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Analysis"?

About having a section named "Analysis": isn't "Analysis" the same thing as "WP:OR", which Jim and the rest of us frown upon? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)