Holy Roman Empire

Cold War Communist wrote:

By the time it ended, correct.

At the time of its inception, incorrect. Anything else?

In what way was it roman?

Koopinator wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:

By the time it ended, correct.

At the time of its inception, incorrect. Anything else?

In what way was it roman?

In what way was it not Holy, Roman, or an Empire?

Cold War Communist wrote:

Koopinator wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:

By the time it ended, correct.

At the time of its inception, incorrect. Anything else?

In what way was it roman?

In what way was it not Holy, Roman, or an Empire?

I wanted to edit this in my comment but now i guess i have to make a new comment:  
I kind of made a mistake to use that recognizable quote from that guy. I was never offended by the idea that it was holy or an empire.  
  
But it wasn't roman because it did not have a lineage of emperors that can be traced back to the roman empire - Unlike the empire of Nicaea, Empire of trebizond, The despotate of the epirus, The byzantine empire, And the kingdom of soissons which can be traced back but aren't called roman like they should be.

That's what I was looking for. I couldn't find where your reasoning came from in previous comments. It gets the "Roman" title from the consecration bestowed upon the lineage of Emperors after Charlemagne though. It is for all intents and purposes the "next" Roman Empire, even though it wasn't actually Roman.  

It's one of those historic, "let's go with that one" moves by the Church. I would not rename it though, for that was the legitimate name for the country while it existed and how other countries recognized it, contrary to how they recognized the Eastern Roman Empire and/or others (which they immediately tried to differentiate and deligitimize).

Do you see my reasoning on the issue? The "Holy" was used to legitimize the "Roman" and that's why it's not the Roman Empire but the Holy Roman Empire. There was a differentiation that was recognized and adopted by the HRE, but because it submitted to the "right" authority at the time for that legitimacy it was given the mantle.

Fun fact, the full name of the HRE (according to the 1512 diet of Cologne) became the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

I guess that was meant to be a compromise for the people even back then who realized the HRE's name didn't represent what it truly was.

Mr Trolldemort wrote:Fun fact, the full name of the HRE (according to the 1512 diet of Cologne) became the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

I guess that was meant to be a compromise for the people even back then who realized the HRE's name didn't represent what it truly was.

You're reading way too deep into that. There wasn't an attempt to compromise. It's just that being Germanic didn't really carry the same prestige and hegemony as being Roman. It also wasn't as if there was a group of people out there trying to take everyday people and morph them into Romans. They wanted to be the successor state, and they succeeded better than other states.

At the end of the day, being "Holy" Roman is as much of a distinction from being the Roman Empire as being Eastern (Byzantine) Roman. There's no real need to change the name, because there's a distinction made by the first word.

Definitely a good discussion though. This feels like the sort of thing this forum was made for.

Indeed, I'm glad to see all this talk on a topic I created

I also agree that the Holy Roman Empire shouldn't have it's name changed when referring to it in the present day. As long as people don't call it simply the Roman empire, the Holy does a good job to differentiate the two, similarly with the Byzantine of Eastern roman empire.

I do think we should just call empires what they were called at the time. Sure the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Roman(it was an empire though, even though it had a really bizarre political system) but they saw themselves as Roman and at the end of the day who are we to judge the identity crisis of a bunch of dead people? Also while their at least is a historical reason(so people know the difference between the two eras) for calling the Byzantine's something else I don't think exists with the HRE. What purpose of changing the name is there besides the fact they weren't Roman. No one really confuses the HRE with another empire.

Of all the names Koopinator proposed though I would vote for "First Reich" as it was the first unified German state that both the Prussians and Nazi's were trying to recreate. I feel though then we'd need to start calling the German Empire "Second Reich(we already do call the Nazi's the Third Reich pretty commonly in my experience).

King of Wurrtemburg wrote:I do think we should just call empires what they were called at the time. Sure the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Roman(it was an empire though, even though it had a really bizarre political system) but they saw themselves as Roman and at the end of the day who are we to judge the identity crisis of a bunch of dead people? Also while their at least is a historical reason(so people know the difference between the two eras) for calling the Byzantine's something else I don't think exists with the HRE. What purpose of changing the name is there besides the fact they weren't Roman. No one really confuses the HRE with another empire.

Of all the names Koopinator proposed though I would vote for "First Reich" as it was the first unified German state that both the Prussians and Nazi's were trying to recreate. I feel though then we'd need to start calling the German Empire "Second Reich(we already do call the Nazi's the Third Reich pretty commonly in my experience).

Are you sure that nobody confuses the HRE with anything else? When i first heard about it i thought it meant the roman empire. Once you learn the geography and history, You understand that that it isn't roman at all, But when you first hear the name, How are you supposed to know that?

Koopinator wrote:

King of Wurrtemburg wrote:I do think we should just call empires what they were called at the time. Sure the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Roman(it was an empire though, even though it had a really bizarre political system) but they saw themselves as Roman and at the end of the day who are we to judge the identity crisis of a bunch of dead people? Also while their at least is a historical reason(so people know the difference between the two eras) for calling the Byzantine's something else I don't think exists with the HRE. What purpose of changing the name is there besides the fact they weren't Roman. No one really confuses the HRE with another empire.

Of all the names Koopinator proposed though I would vote for "First Reich" as it was the first unified German state that both the Prussians and Nazi's were trying to recreate. I feel though then we'd need to start calling the German Empire "Second Reich(we already do call the Nazi's the Third Reich pretty commonly in my experience).

Are you sure that nobody confuses the HRE with anything else? When i first heard about it i thought it meant the roman empire. Once you learn the geography and history, You understand that that it isn't roman at all, But when you first hear the name, How are you supposed to know that?

I'm not sure. Have never heard it before. I think most people who wouldn't know the difference, aren't aware that the HRE even existed in the first place. I think some people upon initially learning history might think that, but like with you I think that it becomes pretty apparent pretty quickly once you delve in deeper that they aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean they didn't think they were though/wanted to be.

How do you feel about the concept of Russia being "the Third Rome"

King of Wurrtemburg wrote:

How do you feel about the concept of Russia being "the Third Rome"

I don't recognize their claim yet i'll take it any day over the ottoman claim.  
  
But seriously, Why can't some things just end? It's okay for something to meet its time once it can't hold on any longer. Russia could pretend all it wanted, But the truth was that rome was dead.

Koopinator wrote:

King of Wurrtemburg wrote:

How do you feel about the concept of Russia being "the Third Rome"

I don't recognize their claim yet i'll take it any day over the ottoman claim.  
  
But seriously, Why can't some things just end? It's okay for something to meet its time once it can't hold on any longer. Russia could pretend all it wanted, But the truth was that rome was dead.

I don't think I'm the one you should be directing that question towards, though it's a good one. The fascination rulers have had with being considered Roman is quite fascinating. It appears almost every time someone has proclaimed an Empire in Europe or has done something notable in terms of territory they've got to invoke some sort of Roman claim. The word emperor in general comes from the word Roman words Augustus and Imperator and the words Kaiser and Tsar basically mean Caesar. Heck when Napoleon was crowned Emperor of the French, he was wearing a Roman wreath. Even the rulers of Bulgaria have deemed themselves successors to Rome with Simeon declaring himself "Emperor of the Bulgarians and Romans" and even Ferdinand of Bulgaria was dreaming of recreating the Byzantine Empire just over a century ago. There are just too many rulers who've seen themselves as Roman and the successor to Rome. My answer for this would simply be that seeing as Rome was the most dominant empire and long lasting western empire by having themselves put on the fancy garb they maybe think the same longevity and dominance will rub off on them. Honestly seems a bit religious to me, after all the name for Emperor is just the last name for some dude who lived two millennia ago.

So here's how all the Roman claims look in my book
Byzantines-they're Roman. Think we can mostly agree there.
HRE-Not Roman, but the position of Holy Roman Empire was created by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, an institution which technically dates back to the Roman Empire. In theory controlled Italy and therefore Rome until the 1500s.
Russia-Shared a religion and culture with the Byzantines and their first "Tsar" was married to a Byzantine princess whose line died before the Times of Troubles.
Ottoman Empire-conquered Constantinople and most of Byzantium's old sphere of influence(Asia Minor, Bulgaria etc).
Bulgaria-got conquered by the Byzantines once and then got conquered by the people who conquered the Byzantines(beforehand).

They're all nonsense but the fact all these rulers went out of their way to create a bogus link to a dead empire, really tells you how they viewed the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire conquered basically all of Classical Civilization(even if they didn't conquer Persia they invaded with varying degrees of success). Most great European conquerors and states especially in the dark ages and early modern period's achievements were relatively very tame and even trivial in comparison. Rome's success was the gold standard that generations and generations of wannabee "Caesar's"  even the more successful ones just couldn't reach.

For example just look at the big fit the European powers had when it looked like France and Spain might unite and what a big deal that would have been. This was merely the backwoods area of the old Roman Empire.

King of Wurrtemburg wrote:


For example just look at the big fit the European powers had when it looked like France and Spain might unite and what a big deal that would have been. This was merely the backwoods area of the old Roman Empire.

This is the first time i'm hearing about this franco-spanish union, Care to elaborate?  
  
Just as a side-note, Those borders would very closely mirror those of the Gallic Empire (Except for portugal and England)

Koopinator wrote:

King of Wurrtemburg wrote:


For example just look at the big fit the European powers had when it looked like France and Spain might unite and what a big deal that would have been. This was merely the backwoods area of the old Roman Empire.

This is the first time i'm hearing about this franco-spanish union, Care to elaborate?  
  
Just as a side-note, Those borders would very closely mirror those of the Gallic Empire (Except for portugal and England)

When the King of Spain died in 1700 the next in line was a Bourbon prince. This would put the Spanish crown under Bourbon rule and French influence rather than Hapsburg rule. This also left open the possibility of France and Spain being under the same monarch one day, if Philip or one of his heirs ever became King of France. Everybody basically joined forces to stop the union and out a Hapsburg(the emperors second son) on the throne. However during the war, both the Holy Roman Emperor and his sonless eldest son died meaning that the alternative to Philip was the new Holy Roman Emperor personally ruling both Spain and the HRE for the first time since Charles V. The result was the war ending with the French getting their man on the throne in exchange for pinky promising that the two countries would never unite(it never became a relevant issue since Philip and his children never inherited the French throne). The Hapsburg's also got all of Spain's European territories(which was a ton of land) as compensation for their family losing the Spanish throne and the perpetual ally that had provided. Spain was a perpetual ally of France until the Napoleonic episode and IMO had basically been neutered as a great power.

Basically in Europe, until Napoleon came around uniting two big crowns like that the way Charles V had done was basically the holy grail of what was possible to accomplish in Europe territorial wise. For just converting Spain to an ally from a perennial foe and acquiring a few little territories in between France and the HRE, Louis XIV had brought France to it's then zenith of power. He didn't even acquire the territory on the map you showed. For Rome, if you take all that away(and England) you're still basically left with Justinian's empire.

Anyway I think I've gotten us a little too off topic. Any other HRE related topics you or anyone else wants to discuss.

Great Discussion!

When I was a kid, I owned this rather thin Atlas of World History by Rand McNally. The Holy Roman Empire always fascinated me, but it never seemed to "do" anything - meaning invade its neighbors, or grow or shrink significantly. Eventually I heard they traced their lineage to "Louis the German" or some such person, apparently one of the sons of Charlemagne.

BINGGG!! The lightbulb switched on. If the Holy Roman Empire were founded by a son of Charlemagne, that would explain where they got the idea they were Roman! FROM THE POPE! So then... it was actually "Holy" by medieval thinking. Hmmmm...

Later, and somewhat dissappointingly, I discovered a period in history called "The Investiture Crisis." Apparently the Holy Roman Empire was, at least for a time in its history, an empire! And they owned Rome! Or at least... dominated the politics of the Italian peninsula, including the Papal States... or... something, because the Emperor actually won the argument with the Pope!

Later still I found out the Holy Roman Empire extended all the way to the southern tip of the Italian peninsula for a time. I guess the Pope invited the Holy Roman Emperor to help him get rid of Norman Kingdom of the Two Sicilys (after creating it by requesting the Normans to take southern Italy from the "Byzantines" and Sicily from the Moors).

Later still I heard our host, EmperorTigerStar bring up the old adage about the Holy Roman Empire being none of the above, and then say, "...except it was, kinda."

Awesome historical fun.

I do think it unfair that we let the Holy Roman Empire posthumously rename the Eastern Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire. I don't think it is a coincidence that it was a German historian who came up with the moniker.

Habsburgs again

By-the-way, I do think it significant, although a side-note to this discussion, that the "Byzantine" Empire was never called that during its existence. The major competitors to Constantinople, first the Persians, then the Caliphate of Baghdad, and then the Turks (who ultimately conquered it), all referred to the "Byzantines" as ROMAN and never as anything else. During the same time the Popes tended to refer to them as the "Greek" Empire since they mostly spoke Greek and were based in the Greek part of the Classical world. (Also the Popes claimed to be the spiritual heirs to the temporal authority of ancient Rome, so they had to call the Eastern Empire something other than Roman.)

Thus, while we're renaming old states, or insisting on not renaming them, let's not forget that most of the names we have for historical "countries" that no longer exist are at the very least westernized, or anglicized versions of their contemporary names for themselves, and sometimes completely ahistorical. Often the country names we see in modern historical maps are actually derived from the titles of the heads-of-state for these proto-nations. "Russia" for example, is derived from one of the traditional titles for the Tsars, "Prince of all the Russians".

I don't mind sticking with the term "Holy Roman Empire" so long as we use an asterisk after the word "Roman" in order to make it clear to subsequent students of history that this "Empire" was NOT a Medieval extension, or revival of the Western Roman Empire. The term "Byzantine" on the other hand is a complete misnomer, and should be changed.

The average Medieval citizen of one of the Russias would at least recognize the root word "Rus" in the name we have applied to their space on the map. Likewise a citizen of any of the city-states that made up the so-called Holy Roman Empire knew the term. On the other hand, the average "Byzantine" citizen would have had no idea what the word meant in the context of our modern historical geography. They simply considered themselves Romans.