I like that there's no music and your voice isn't too loud really makes it not very distracting unlike something like Kings and Generals I can listen to you while doing something else as well
Small little nitpick: You talk a lot about the electoral process for the Holy Roman Emperor. But it was the German king that got elected who later could get crowned emperor by the pope. Rudolf of Habsburg was never crowned emperor. From 1508 onwards they would call themselves "emperor elect" after the election (unless they were the heir of the still living emperor) but it still remained a royal election until the end.
Just a small nitpick: When referring to Charles IV at around 6:25, you say "...Charles standing up for his own prerogatives and those of the other Habsburgs...", it sounds like Charles IV was himself a Habsburg. Now, while he was related to them (his maternal grandmother being Judith von Habsburg), he actually belonged to the House of Luxembourg, through his father, John of Bohemia. Not super important, just something that stood out a bit, since I've never heard of him being referred to as a Habsburger.
History major with a concentration in early medieval Europe, obviously love your content. Just started this one and had to point out that that was probably the most underwhelming introduction to any presentation I've ever heard, lol.
It seems the HRE devolved into a relative democratic entity for era in the 14th and 15th centuries due to the distribution of power. For example, cities could pretty much do what they thought was in their own interest. The problem becomes defending against the armies other more centralized states.
The political power of the three ecclesiastical princes is much more signifficant than their spiritual authority as religious leaders. The three prince-archbishops were simultaneously religious leaders of their seas and CHANCELLORS of their respective parts of the empire, so they also headed the secular bureaucracy.
HRE worked up till Westphalia. Arguably till 30 years war Hapsburg could exert lot of influence and had a lot of power in empire but really the entrance of Sweden and later France into the 30 years war lead to the end of Austria’s ability to effectively hold the princes together. If only Charles and Phillip were willing to compromise with those northern and eastern German nobles then maybe Habsburg Austria could have created a strong state in Central Europe
I forgot to mention Ferdinand too. I find it silly how with the ottomanthreat in the east and France to the west the hre emperors opposed the princes who had become Protestants and plunged the land into war. Probably I think if Charles and his successors were more tolerant Spain could have kept Netherlands, the Swiss could have been brought to heel and the power of the emperor could have become more centralised. Maybe not to same extent as France but at the very least hre could be called an empire then and the Habsburg would be in a much stronger position to push the Ottomans out of europe
finally someone who mentions that the HRE was quite capable, before Westphalia at least. Everyone likes to throw around Voltaire’s quote around and thats that without understanding the context behind it
Heart of Europe by Peter H Wilson Germania, lotharimgia, and Danubia (three separate books) by Simon winder The carolingians by Michael idomir Allen The thirty years war by Geoffrey Parker. I’m also looking for books on the HRE anything from Charlemagne to Frederick III so I’ll take some recommendations as well
Switzerland does Break away in 1499 but legally only after 1648. Most of the later Swiss Territories got rid of their Princes but stayed formally under the Umbrella of the Kaiser. The City State of Berne with the Help of other „Swiss“ Allies destroyed Burgundy, with financial Aid by France and Habsburg. De Facto „Switzerland“ broke away from the Reich after the „Schwabenkrieg“. De Jure the Break away followed after the 30 Year War.
Did they? Which wars do you mean? I think most of the wars were actually fought by the Habsburg monarchy which technically included the HRE title but were far beyond that at that point.
Thersites, Can you explain who exactly the ministeriales were? I've looked them up and tried researching them myself, but the description I always find about them sounds incredibly similar to that of knights serving a lord. I remember reading something (I forget where) about Emperor Frederick II attempting to gain support from ministeriales by securing land to grant to them (thus making them land owners, which it seemed they weren't before). However my information has often been vague and incomplete, so I would like to know if you can help shine a light on these guys.
the were like serfs in noble office . Example : Emperor Heinrich III distrust his nobles so he named to the imperial offices people of the low birth . Ministeriales had to still to ask their master for permission (for marriage ,move ...) like serfs . They were also knights , and were considered nobles as social class not legal one .
Hey Thersites. It is very hard to find good scholastic or even pop literature on the HRE in this period. Do you have a bibliography for this video? Also ... If anyone has good books to recommend, please feel free.
i Love your videos in every way but this time i'm bit shocked tht you metnioned nothing of Premysl Otakat II. This guy was way more powerfull and competent that Rudolf and if there was not betreyal (as usually) he would have become Holy roma emperor.
Actually, this is the first that I have heard of this person. I don't really know anything more about this particular topic than what appears in the video, unfortunately.
@@ThersitestheHistorian I know it's been a year, but he was the King of Bohemia arguebly the most powerful and his epthiat I think was "The Iron and Golden King".
The HRE was neither blah blah we know that, let me make an actually interesting observation: the HRE was a Reverse Frankenstein's monster. It was originally a whole single living thing that somehow became a million stitched together parts, each individually technically alive but taken together the whole of it being dead. Also as a Swiss, I am always proud and gleeful (in a history obsessed's way, not normie way) how we mogged the Habsburgs out of their ancestral home castle and to add insult to injury became the for the longest time one of only like three (often only) non-city-state republics in Europe, and the sole nation that was never a monarchy. Edit: holy shit, I just saw how you used the same HRE analogy in another vid. Great minds think alike. But at least my reason it's such a monster is new.
That is the big problem with the Swiss: you think you never were part of the feudsl system. But you were. Three measly cantons broke away in 1191, the rest staid, some of them for a very long time....
eh… that might apply to post-Westphalian HRE but prior to that the entirety of Voltaire’s quote can be considered false: Holy: There is no doubt the HRE was Holy in its early days. Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which is pretty holy. It is important to note however that the term Holy was never directly used by emperor until Frederick Barbarossa. Barbarossa used the Holy terms as the emperor was considered to be a deputy of Jesus within the secular world, and also had the power to grant bishopric titles to people. Roman: Probably the most controversial of the three letters is the R. It is commonly stated that the HRE never ruled Rome but the Carolingians under Charlemagne did occupy Rome, then they donated the land to the pope. The Roman Empire itself never even had Rome as its capital in the later years either, not even Western Rome, which based itself in Ravenna I believe. Also a female being crowned emperor was unprecedented at the time. Empress Irene was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor at the time, and by the male-preference succession laws common at the time, it can be stated that the Roman Empire was in an interregnum at the time. The Papacy, which was the only remaining institution from western Rome that still existed by this pope (the senate lasted until the Goths I think), so the pope definitely arguably had the authority to crown an emperor, due to imperial vacancy. Until Maximilian I von Habsburg, emperors would be crowned by the pope, so there was some legitimacy. In addition to this the Byzantines did refer to the HR Emperor as an Emperor, just not a Roman one. However, Emperor in medieval history is synonymous to Rome (Tsardom of Russia translates to Caesar, as Russia was somewhat related to the last Byzantine princess I think and as such they claimed title of Roman Emperor) Empire: The HRE was an empire. Prior to Westphalia the emperor had immense influence. Though it was decentralized, it was still a united empire, it just followed feudal practices. There was a lot of land and as such there were tons of vassals for an Emperor to manage, and succession laws led to ugly borders, yet everyone was still a vassal of the Emperor. Its like saying France wasn’t a kingdom since it was decentralized (France may have been worse off than the HRE at this time as their vassals literally were more powerful than the actual kings: ex Aquitaine, Anjou, England was a vassal of France de jure, search King Edward of England pays homage to King of France). Also by the dictionary defintion of empire: “an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.”, the HRE was definitely an Empire, as the vassals did bow to a supreme authority. Does this mean their weren’t rebels? Of course not, Lombard League, Guelph/Ghibiline are examples of major factions in the HRE, but the same was true of the Byzantine and even Roman Empires too. One thing that is constantly claimed is that the HRE was German instead of “Roman”. The problem is that Roman isnt reallt an ethnicity. The Roman Empire consisted of many different races and cultures (The HRE did too with Czechs, Franks, Germans, Italians, etc). The “Romans” people think of may be those who spoke Latin, yet the main language of European diplomacy for most of the middle ages was Latin: does that make everyone Latin? Of course not. Lastly, a comment on Voltaire. Voltaire saw the HRE just a few years before its dissolution under Francis II. The HRE lasted 1000 years, and no doubt it underwent great changes. It went from a rather Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne to becoming slighly less Roman, Holy, and Empirelike over time, but despite everything, up until the Peace of Westphalia, the HRE is definitely worthy of its title. Voltaire is also french, and an enemy of tradition being a renaissance man, so of course he attacks a nation that is German in dominant culture and rooted in ancient tradition and practices. One must understand Voltaire’s motives for the quote to understand it I recommend Apostolic Majesty’s video on whether the HRE was Holy, Roman, or an Empire since he goes into much more details
@@adamyang3264 The "Roman" had only coincidally to do with the city of Rome, it referred to the so-called translatio imperii, i.e. the HRE saw itself as the rightful successor to the (Western) Roman empire. It was not for nothing that the head of the HRE called himself "Kaiser" (kaesar, as the Romans would have pronounced it, the "c" in Julius Caesar was pronounced as a "k"), they saw themselves as the follow-up act of imperial Rome. Hence the Holy ROMAN Empire.
The first thing people should understand about the Holy Roman Empire is that it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Once that's under the belt, everything falls into place.
eh… that might apply to post-Westphalian HRE but prior to that the entirety of Voltaire’s quote can be considered false: Holy: There is no doubt the HRE was Holy in its early days. Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which is pretty holy. It is important to note however that the term Holy was never directly used by emperor until Frederick Barbarossa. Barbarossa used the Holy terms as the emperor was considered to be a deputy of Jesus within the secular world, and also had the power to grant bishopric titles to people. Roman: Probably the most controversial of the three letters is the R. It is commonly stated that the HRE never ruled Rome but the Carolingians under Charlemagne did occupy Rome, then they donated the land to the pope. The Roman Empire itself never even had Rome as its capital in the later years either, not even Western Rome, which based itself in Ravenna I believe. Also a female being crowned emperor was unprecedented at the time. Empress Irene was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor at the time, and by the male-preference succession laws common at the time, it can be stated that the Roman Empire was in an interregnum at the time. The Papacy, which was the only remaining institution from western Rome that still existed by this pope (the senate lasted until the Goths I think), so the pope definitely arguably had the authority to crown an emperor, due to imperial vacancy. Until Maximilian I von Habsburg, emperors would be crowned by the pope, so there was some legitimacy. In addition to this the Byzantines did refer to the HR Emperor as an Emperor, just not a Roman one. However, Emperor in medieval history is synonymous to Rome (Tsardom of Russia translates to Caesar, as Russia was somewhat related to the last Byzantine princess I think and as such they claimed title of Roman Emperor) Empire: The HRE was an empire. Prior to Westphalia the emperor had immense influence. Though it was decentralized, it was still a united empire, it just followed feudal practices. There was a lot of land and as such there were tons of vassals for an Emperor to manage, and succession laws led to ugly borders, yet everyone was still a vassal of the Emperor. Its like saying France wasn’t a kingdom since it was decentralized (France may have been worse off than the HRE at this time as their vassals literally were more powerful than the actual kings: ex Aquitaine, Anjou, England was a vassal of France de jure, search King Edward of England pays homage to King of France). Also by the dictionary defintion of empire: “an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.”, the HRE was definitely an Empire, as the vassals did bow to a supreme authority. Does this mean their weren’t rebels? Of course not, Lombard League, Guelph/Ghibiline are examples of major factions in the HRE, but the same was true of the Byzantine and even Roman Empires too. One thing that is constantly claimed is that the HRE was German instead of “Roman”. The problem is that Roman isnt reallt an ethnicity. The Roman Empire consisted of many different races and cultures (The HRE did too with Czechs, Franks, Germans, Italians, etc). The “Romans” people think of may be those who spoke Latin, yet the main language of European diplomacy for most of the middle ages was Latin: does that make everyone Latin? Of course not. Lastly, a comment on Voltaire. Voltaire saw the HRE just a few years before its dissolution under Francis II. The HRE lasted 1000 years, and no doubt it underwent great changes. It went from a rather Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne to becoming slighly less Roman, Holy, and Empirelike over time, but despite everything, up until the Peace of Westphalia, the HRE is definitely worthy of its title. Voltaire is also french, and an enemy of tradition being a renaissance man, so of course he attacks a nation that is German in dominant culture and rooted in ancient tradition and practices. One must understand Voltaire’s motives for the quote to understand it I recommend Apostolic Majesty’s video on whether the HRE was Holy, Roman, or an Empire since he goes into much more details
"...big conglomeration of confusing arrangements...," just rolls off the tongue
I like that there's no music and your voice isn't too loud really makes it not very distracting unlike something like Kings and Generals I can listen to you while doing something else as well
Ikr its almost like a podcast love listening to them while cleaning or on a walk
Kings and Generals is for battles, this is for politics and burocracy
Small little nitpick:
You talk a lot about the electoral process for the Holy Roman Emperor. But it was the German king that got elected who later could get crowned emperor by the pope. Rudolf of Habsburg was never crowned emperor.
From 1508 onwards they would call themselves "emperor elect" after the election (unless they were the heir of the still living emperor) but it still remained a royal election until the end.
Just a small nitpick:
When referring to Charles IV at around 6:25, you say "...Charles standing up for his own prerogatives and those of the other Habsburgs...", it sounds like Charles IV was himself a Habsburg. Now, while he was related to them (his maternal grandmother being Judith von Habsburg), he actually belonged to the House of Luxembourg, through his father, John of Bohemia.
Not super important, just something that stood out a bit, since I've never heard of him being referred to as a Habsburger.
"Obvious failure of the imperial model" Are you talking about the same government that lasted 1000 years? Lol
And had multiple in fighiting trougouth that time
@Daniel Kochofar ???
And fell
@@JoeTheBroken Nothing lasts forever, but I think it's to its credit that it lasted that long, since seldom do terrenal institutions last a millenium.
@@mitonaarea5856 and despite that, held together.
History major with a concentration in early medieval Europe, obviously love your content.
Just started this one and had to point out that that was probably the most underwhelming introduction to any presentation I've ever heard, lol.
It seems the HRE devolved into a relative democratic entity for era in the 14th and 15th centuries due to the distribution of power. For example, cities could pretty much do what they thought was in their own interest. The problem becomes defending against the armies other more centralized states.
The political power of the three ecclesiastical princes is much more signifficant than their spiritual authority as religious leaders. The three prince-archbishops were simultaneously religious leaders of their seas and CHANCELLORS of their respective parts of the empire, so they also headed the secular bureaucracy.
Really like your channel. You constantly put out really good educational material. Keep it up!
Good one Trooper
HRE worked up till Westphalia. Arguably till 30 years war Hapsburg could exert lot of influence and had a lot of power in empire but really the entrance of Sweden and later France into the 30 years war lead to the end of Austria’s ability to effectively hold the princes together. If only Charles and Phillip were willing to compromise with those northern and eastern German nobles then maybe Habsburg Austria could have created a strong state in Central Europe
I forgot to mention Ferdinand too. I find it silly how with the ottomanthreat in the east and France to the west the hre emperors opposed the princes who had become Protestants and plunged the land into war. Probably I think if Charles and his successors were more tolerant Spain could have kept Netherlands, the Swiss could have been brought to heel and the power of the emperor could have become more centralised. Maybe not to same extent as France but at the very least hre could be called an empire then and the Habsburg would be in a much stronger position to push the Ottomans out of europe
It was more the protestant reformation that crippled central authority rather than the war itself.
finally someone who mentions that the HRE was quite capable, before Westphalia at least. Everyone likes to throw around Voltaire’s quote around and thats that without understanding the context behind it
Could you recommend some good books on this subject?
Heart of Europe by Peter H Wilson
Germania, lotharimgia, and Danubia (three separate books) by Simon winder
The carolingians by Michael idomir Allen
The thirty years war by Geoffrey Parker.
I’m also looking for books on the HRE anything from Charlemagne to Frederick III so I’ll take some recommendations as well
@@njb1126 so far i got "Germany and the Holy Roman Empire" pt. 1 and 2
great books
by joachim whaley
The book For God and Kaiser
Switzerland does Break away in 1499 but legally only after 1648.
Most of the later Swiss Territories got rid of their Princes but stayed formally under the Umbrella of the Kaiser. The City State of Berne with the Help of other „Swiss“ Allies destroyed Burgundy, with financial Aid by France and Habsburg.
De Facto „Switzerland“ broke away from the Reich after the „Schwabenkrieg“.
De Jure the Break away followed after the 30 Year War.
Thanks for the interesting video
Charles IV was from Luxemburg dynasty not from habsburgs
You know you seem to really talk down an empire that lasted 1,000 years and defeated the ottomans. Several times
Did they? Which wars do you mean? I think most of the wars were actually fought by the Habsburg monarchy which technically included the HRE title but were far beyond that at that point.
Thersites,
Can you explain who exactly the ministeriales were? I've looked them up and tried researching them myself, but the description I always find about them sounds incredibly similar to that of knights serving a lord. I remember reading something (I forget where) about Emperor Frederick II attempting to gain support from ministeriales by securing land to grant to them (thus making them land owners, which it seemed they weren't before). However my information has often been vague and incomplete, so I would like to know if you can help shine a light on these guys.
the were like serfs in noble office . Example : Emperor Heinrich III distrust his nobles so he named to the imperial offices people of the low birth . Ministeriales had to still to ask their master for permission (for marriage ,move ...) like serfs . They were also knights , and were considered nobles as social class not legal one .
Hey Thersites. It is very hard to find good scholastic or even pop literature on the HRE in this period. Do you have a bibliography for this video? Also ... If anyone has good books to recommend, please feel free.
Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger's A Short History of the Holy Roman Empire looks good and is something that I plan to read soon.
Thank you! All the best.
i Love your videos in every way but this time i'm bit shocked tht you metnioned nothing of Premysl Otakat II. This guy was way more powerfull and competent that Rudolf and if there was not betreyal (as usually) he would have become Holy roma emperor.
Actually, this is the first that I have heard of this person. I don't really know anything more about this particular topic than what appears in the video, unfortunately.
@@ThersitestheHistorian I know it's been a year, but he was the King of Bohemia arguebly the most powerful and his epthiat I think was "The Iron and Golden King".
He also invented the long-standing tradition of the Bohemian crown getting slapped down by the Habsburgs.
@@ThersitestheHistorian Embarrassing statement.
Wouldn't the princes faction have the bigger threat on their border in france though?
The HRE was neither blah blah we know that, let me make an actually interesting observation: the HRE was a Reverse Frankenstein's monster. It was originally a whole single living thing that somehow became a million stitched together parts, each individually technically alive but taken together the whole of it being dead.
Also as a Swiss, I am always proud and gleeful (in a history obsessed's way, not normie way) how we mogged the Habsburgs out of their ancestral home castle and to add insult to injury became the for the longest time one of only like three (often only) non-city-state republics in Europe, and the sole nation that was never a monarchy.
Edit: holy shit, I just saw how you used the same HRE analogy in another vid. Great minds think alike. But at least my reason it's such a monster is new.
That is the big problem with the Swiss: you think you never were part of the feudsl system. But you were. Three measly cantons broke away in 1191, the rest staid, some of them for a very long time....
eh… that might apply to post-Westphalian HRE but prior to that the entirety of Voltaire’s quote can be considered false:
Holy: There is no doubt the HRE was Holy in its early days. Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which is pretty holy. It is important to note however that the term Holy was never directly used by emperor until Frederick Barbarossa. Barbarossa used the Holy terms as the emperor was considered to be a deputy of Jesus within the secular world, and also had the power to grant bishopric titles to people.
Roman: Probably the most controversial of the three letters is the R. It is commonly stated that the HRE never ruled Rome but the Carolingians under Charlemagne did occupy Rome, then they donated the land to the pope. The Roman Empire itself never even had Rome as its capital in the later years either, not even Western Rome, which based itself in Ravenna I believe. Also a female being crowned emperor was unprecedented at the time. Empress Irene was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor at the time, and by the male-preference succession laws common at the time, it can be stated that the Roman Empire was in an interregnum at the time. The Papacy, which was the only remaining institution from western Rome that still existed by this pope (the senate lasted until the Goths I think), so the pope definitely arguably had the authority to crown an emperor, due to imperial vacancy. Until Maximilian I von Habsburg, emperors would be crowned by the pope, so there was some legitimacy. In addition to this the Byzantines did refer to the HR Emperor as an Emperor, just not a Roman one. However, Emperor in medieval history is synonymous to Rome (Tsardom of Russia translates to Caesar, as Russia was somewhat related to the last Byzantine princess I think and as such they claimed title of Roman Emperor)
Empire: The HRE was an empire. Prior to Westphalia the emperor had immense influence. Though it was decentralized, it was still a united empire, it just followed feudal practices. There was a lot of land and as such there were tons of vassals for an Emperor to manage, and succession laws led to ugly borders, yet everyone was still a vassal of the Emperor. Its like saying France wasn’t a kingdom since it was decentralized (France may have been worse off than the HRE at this time as their vassals literally were more powerful than the actual kings: ex Aquitaine, Anjou, England was a vassal of France de jure, search King Edward of England pays homage to King of France). Also by the dictionary defintion of empire: “an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.”, the HRE was definitely an Empire, as the vassals did bow to a supreme authority. Does this mean their weren’t rebels? Of course not, Lombard League, Guelph/Ghibiline are examples of major factions in the HRE, but the same was true of the Byzantine and even Roman Empires too.
One thing that is constantly claimed is that the HRE was German instead of “Roman”. The problem is that Roman isnt reallt an ethnicity. The Roman Empire consisted of many different races and cultures (The HRE did too with Czechs, Franks, Germans, Italians, etc). The “Romans” people think of may be those who spoke Latin, yet the main language of European diplomacy for most of the middle ages was Latin: does that make everyone Latin? Of course not.
Lastly, a comment on Voltaire. Voltaire saw the HRE just a few years before its dissolution under Francis II. The HRE lasted 1000 years, and no doubt it underwent great changes. It went from a rather Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne to becoming slighly less Roman, Holy, and Empirelike over time, but despite everything, up until the Peace of Westphalia, the HRE is definitely worthy of its title. Voltaire is also french, and an enemy of tradition being a renaissance man, so of course he attacks a nation that is German in dominant culture and rooted in ancient tradition and practices. One must understand Voltaire’s motives for the quote to understand it
I recommend Apostolic Majesty’s video on whether the HRE was Holy, Roman, or an Empire since he goes into much more details
@@adamyang3264 The "Roman" had only coincidally to do with the city of Rome, it referred to the so-called translatio imperii, i.e. the HRE saw itself as the rightful successor to the (Western) Roman empire. It was not for nothing that the head of the HRE called himself "Kaiser" (kaesar, as the Romans would have pronounced it, the "c" in Julius Caesar was pronounced as a "k"), they saw themselves as the follow-up act of imperial Rome. Hence the Holy ROMAN Empire.
@@lutzvonpeter9170 well said
Frederick the 2nd is my favorite ME King.
The Holy Roman Big Conglomeration of Confusing And Ineffective Arrangements of the German Nation
Vgh, what might have been...
The first thing people should understand about the Holy Roman Empire is that it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Once that's under the belt, everything falls into place.
eh… that might apply to post-Westphalian HRE but prior to that the entirety of Voltaire’s quote can be considered false:
Holy: There is no doubt the HRE was Holy in its early days. Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which is pretty holy. It is important to note however that the term Holy was never directly used by emperor until Frederick Barbarossa. Barbarossa used the Holy terms as the emperor was considered to be a deputy of Jesus within the secular world, and also had the power to grant bishopric titles to people.
Roman: Probably the most controversial of the three letters is the R. It is commonly stated that the HRE never ruled Rome but the Carolingians under Charlemagne did occupy Rome, then they donated the land to the pope. The Roman Empire itself never even had Rome as its capital in the later years either, not even Western Rome, which based itself in Ravenna I believe. Also a female being crowned emperor was unprecedented at the time. Empress Irene was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor at the time, and by the male-preference succession laws common at the time, it can be stated that the Roman Empire was in an interregnum at the time. The Papacy, which was the only remaining institution from western Rome that still existed by this pope (the senate lasted until the Goths I think), so the pope definitely arguably had the authority to crown an emperor, due to imperial vacancy. Until Maximilian I von Habsburg, emperors would be crowned by the pope, so there was some legitimacy. In addition to this the Byzantines did refer to the HR Emperor as an Emperor, just not a Roman one. However, Emperor in medieval history is synonymous to Rome (Tsardom of Russia translates to Caesar, as Russia was somewhat related to the last Byzantine princess I think and as such they claimed title of Roman Emperor)
Empire: The HRE was an empire. Prior to Westphalia the emperor had immense influence. Though it was decentralized, it was still a united empire, it just followed feudal practices. There was a lot of land and as such there were tons of vassals for an Emperor to manage, and succession laws led to ugly borders, yet everyone was still a vassal of the Emperor. Its like saying France wasn’t a kingdom since it was decentralized (France may have been worse off than the HRE at this time as their vassals literally were more powerful than the actual kings: ex Aquitaine, Anjou, England was a vassal of France de jure, search King Edward of England pays homage to King of France). Also by the dictionary defintion of empire: “an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.”, the HRE was definitely an Empire, as the vassals did bow to a supreme authority. Does this mean their weren’t rebels? Of course not, Lombard League, Guelph/Ghibiline are examples of major factions in the HRE, but the same was true of the Byzantine and even Roman Empires too.
One thing that is constantly claimed is that the HRE was German instead of “Roman”. The problem is that Roman isnt reallt an ethnicity. The Roman Empire consisted of many different races and cultures (The HRE did too with Czechs, Franks, Germans, Italians, etc). The “Romans” people think of may be those who spoke Latin, yet the main language of European diplomacy for most of the middle ages was Latin: does that make everyone Latin? Of course not.
Lastly, a comment on Voltaire. Voltaire saw the HRE just a few years before its dissolution under Francis II. The HRE lasted 1000 years, and no doubt it underwent great changes. It went from a rather Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne to becoming slighly less Roman, Holy, and Empirelike over time, but despite everything, up until the Peace of Westphalia, the HRE is definitely worthy of its title. Voltaire is also french, and an enemy of tradition being a renaissance man, so of course he attacks a nation that is German in dominant culture and rooted in ancient tradition and practices. One must understand Voltaire’s motives for the quote to understand it
I recommend Apostolic Majesty’s video on whether the HRE was Holy, Roman, or an Empire since he goes into much more details
And Hitler of 1933
Objectivity is a great thing. You should try it.
what the fuck is hoy roman empire ? ))))