Talk:Concordat of Worms/Archive 1

Comments
Well, here we go. Two Henry V's worthy of any entry -- of England and Holy Roman Emperor. I've not enough expertise in the HRE to decide on a good article name for the latter of our Henries, so if someone who does would care to decide and make the change in this article....Thanks. -- Paul Drye

My choice would be Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor JHK Seconded. sjc
 * once again, what about those irritating emperors who are really only kings - i.e., don't get crowned by the pope? we could just finesse this.  What about dynzasty names (Hohenzollern, Habsburg, Hohenstaufen)? As soon as I hit save I realized that I DO vote for  .  It's still less confusing.   --MichaelTinkler

Actually, we probably need a standards page for precisely this sort of problem in doing history in an encyclopaedic context. I will call it Wikipedia History standards.
 * Thanks, Michael. I think we should probably avoid using family names, because then we'll get into Zollern/Hohenzollern, Spanish or Austrian Habsburgs, etc.  And the Prussian rulers would be way too complex for my pea brain! JHK

Er it was me, sorry. It's up there, please ramp it up as you see fit. sjc
 * oops! Good page, though! JHK

At the bottom of the article, where it says "Biography," shouldn't that read "Bibliography"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.79.30 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal essay
This article is terrible. A personal essay at best.

The article is about the Concordat of Worms, which dealt with a crucial but narrow issue: the procedure surrounding the election and consecration of bishops and abbots within the Holy Roman Empire. Nothing else.

Yet the first section titled Inheritance and alienation focuses on land grants to nobles, land tenure and the status of peasants. But the Concordat of Worms had NOTHING to do with those issues, even remotely!

The following section Gregorian Reforms talks about a lot of things, many having little or nothing to do with the Concordat. It might be justified as a preamble of a 50-page article on the Concordat, but not here.

Other sections deal with the Concordat of London and the situation in England, but again, it has nothing to do with the Concordat of Worms.

The Lead contains preposterous statements such as the Concordat contained "within itself the germ of nation-based sovereignty that would one day be confirmed in the Treaty of Westphalia". What on earth does a concordat that deals with the transfer of nomination powers of bishops from the German emperor to German cathedral chapters has to do with nation-based sovereignty, a concept that appeared only during the so-called Age of Nationalism (post-1815)! The article contains other such far-fetched statements.

The article also contains subjective statements suchs as "the most corrupt of any of the popes of the era". These kind of personal judgments are inapropriate here.

The numerous references and the bibliography are mostly related general works on the Middle Ages and not focused on the German situation and the Concordat of Worms. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Results are wrong
''What this meant, in effect, was that the king would have the bishop he wanted, though some prelate would invest the new bishop with the insignia of the office. As William of Champeaux assured Henry V, he had nothing to lose by surrendering the right of investiture. In the Concordat of Worms the church accepted a face-saving concession. The king retained substantially what he already possessed—the power to fill bishoprics with men of his choice.'' Wrong, to begin with in the most important part of the issue. The Concordat was a compromise in the full sense of the word. -- What is described here is (part of the) truth for Germany. In Germany the king would have the bishop he wanted - albeit with having to take some care to, officially, the canons, and inofficially, at least over time, the secular princes (who would get their sort-of representation in the chapters). On the other hand, in Italy and Burgundy, the Pope got an actual security that the King (who was also king there) would not interfere. The invention of the sceptre for clergy, as signifying their secular authority (which was to be given by the king, without exception to the one elected bishop, yet before ring-and-staff in Germany, but after ring-and-staff in Italy and Burgundy), should also be mentioned. Ring and staff were always to be given by the Church, not the State. Certainly this was sort of face-saving at least to modern eyes, but remember that the Middle Ages were fond of symbolism. Even in the investiture question, the Church herself was at least a degree less opposed to the layman designating the person of the bishop, than to the layman giving ring and staff to the bishop.--77.4.50.65 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the picture?
The Wikimedia caption for the topmost picture reads "Kaiser Heinrich V visits his father in prison". Is this related to the Concordat, or is the picture simply the best picture we have of Heinrich V? I feel like the caption in the article should be more clear on this if this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.45.192 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)