Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 5

First Reich
First Reich is a redirect to this article. I'm not sure if that's accurate, and in any case, it should be explained in the article itself. patsw (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First Reich certainly refers to the Holy Roman Empire. The term ought to be explained, though. john k (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First Reich? Second Reich? "The Third Reich as a continuation of the German (Prussian) Empire": A very historically problematic statement placed at the beginning of the article.

"It is also termed the German First Reich. It is sometimes called the Second Reich, while the First Reich would be the Roman Empire and the Third Reich would be the continuation of the German (Prussian) Empire."

This is an extremely problematic statement to make, not only linking the German Empire with the Third Reich, but because most historians would not characterize the Holy Roman Empire as the Second Reich, just to do so. There isn't enough continuity, scholarly opinion and or approval to warrant this statement, as Austria played a crucial role in the affairs of these eras, and after World War I, for example, there was not a direct transition from any Emperor (Austrian or German) to the Third Reich. Mweinshel (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should not be adding unattributed controversial views.  Go ahead and remove it! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a problem in translating reich, isn't there? It does not necessarily mean an amalgamation of lands under a single monarch, an emperor. It might simply mean a kingdom, as in Frankreich- kingdom of the French, or just a 'state', as it is used to describe Germany even today.So for the Teutonic peoples to describe their lands as 'The Reich' does not necessarily demonstrate any pretension to continuity with the Roman Empire.I think the terms 'First Reich', 'Second Reich' are pretty much inventions of English-speaking historians?Gazzster (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite.
 * You are correct that "reich" doesn't mean monarchy. German Reich remained the state's name even after the end of the monarchies in 1918. Where you got the idea that the term "is used to describe Germany even today" I don't know. It's not true!
 * The term is also ambiguous in regard to whether a Kingdom or an Empire is meant, which ties in with the character of the German Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire, especially after the latter came to be restricted to the former. (Also, consider the common misidentification (even in WP) of the German Reichskrone, now kept at Vienna, as an "imperial crown", when it was actually only the royal crown, a permanent Imperial crown not existing.)
 * The word "Reich" came to mean the superstructure encompassing all the principalities, cities etc. (and it also had a metaphysical connotation). The HRE ended in 1806 and was restored in 1814 only as a loose federation - still in the wake of nationalism, Germans wanded a unified nation state too and they looked towards the HRE as their previous nation state. Hence, the call for a restoration of the "Reich". This was achieved under Prussian leadership in 1871. The Kaiserreichs symbolism often referred back to the HRE, with the German Emperor being depicted with a modernised version of the Reichskrone.
 * Despite the state still being called "Reich", the changes of 1918 - linked as they were with Germany's defeat - were considered by many to be the end of the second German Reich and looked towards a restoration of "German power and glory" in a third Reich. The Nazis were only one possible version of such a restored, third Reich but they came to power and appropriated the term to their regime.
 * To cut a long story short: the terms "First" and "Second" Reich - as undoubtedly as they refer to the HRE and the Kaiserreich, respectively, only make sense in reference to a "Third" Reich, which can either be the one hoped for by some in the 1920s or the one that actually came in 1933.
 * Deposuit (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reich= realm
 * reich= rich
 * Frankreich (France) = realm of the franks
 * Österreich (Austria)= eastern realm
 * Königreich (kingdom)= realm governed by a king
 * Kaiserreich = realm governed by a emperor
 * You cant simply say Reich = empire


 * No, then you really should tell everyone who speaks German about this. They may want to know.  -- Jayron  32  02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reich, in German, doesn't mean Empire. It is better translated as Realm. But it just mostly isn't.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The territory or government of a German state, as the Holy Roman Empire, or First Reich, from 962 to 1806; the German Empire, or Second Reich, from 1871 to 1919; the Weimar Republic, from 1919 to 1933; or the Third Reich, from 1933 to 1945.

[German, empire, realm, from Middle High German rīch, rīche, from Old High German rīhhi; see reg- in Indo-European roots.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire
I'm not the best person to talk about history, but I am very confused why there was both a Roman Empire and a Holy Roman Empire. Well my guess is that since Rome was a city thriving with Christianity, so it was their main focus, making a 'Holy Roman' Empire. But some people say Austria was also a Holy Roman Empire, and I don't fully deny that claim.

98.250.29.24 (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Anonymous
 * They are two different, and distinct, things. The Holy Roman Empire (what this article is about) refers to the central European polity which coincided roughly with Germany, and at times parts of Italy, Burgundy, Bohemia, etc.  Other than the name itself, it has no direct connection to the prior Roman Empire, which of course still existed along side the Holy Roman Empire for many years.  Given the name, it is easy to confuse the two different states, but they are distinct from each other.  The reason the Holy Roman Empire has "roman" in the name, despite not actually deriving directly from the prior Roman Empire of the Caesars and all that, is complex, but boils down to a concept known as Translatio imperii, whereby the German King was granted the Imperial title by the Pope (acting as the Bishop of Rome and heir to the Roman Pontifex Maximus).  The Holy Roman Empire was not the first attempt to re-establish the Western Empire after its fall in 476 AD (see the earlier Carolingian Empire for example) but it was the longest lasting.  -- Jayron  32  06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Map Overload
@User:‎Elevatorrailfan: As I have noted in edit descriptions, there are already a total of 18 maps on this article, including the nine maps in the gif. There are already two maps of the empire in 1789, including one that is much better detailed than the one being added to the infobox. There is already a map in the infobox, and on top of all that, you insist on putting your map first, out of chronological order. Tell me, why does the page need another map, of lower quality than those already there? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I added that map was because it was a simplified map of the Holy Roman Empire with the borders within the Holy Roman Empire and the borders of the other countries in Europe in 1789.

Elevatorrailfan (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This map already shows the empire in 1789, with the borders of other countries and with the territories labelled. It is better quality and is placed in context. The infobox already has a map of the empire at its greatest extent. So you are putting a lower quality map of the empire just before it ended at the very top. It is unneeded and out of place in the infobox. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm with Laszlo on this one, I don't think either map belongs in the infobox but I particularly don't see the point of the 1789 map (what's special about 1789?). Also, the caption for that map makes no sense ("outwith" is not an English word).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason given to add this map is that it is a simplified map of the HRE in 1789, though there are already simple and detailed 1789 maps on the page. And as the other user points out, why would 1789 be highlighted in the infobox? I just don't see any need for a duplicate map with less detail than what is already on the page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lede (again)
"The title was revived in 962 when Otto I was crowned emperor, fashioning himself as the successor of Charlemagne and beginning a continuous existence of the empire for over eight centuries."

Why should the interregnum of 924–62 be treated as an interruption in continuity and not those of 1250–1312 or 1378–1433? What is "continuous existence" supposed to mean? Srnec (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lede
"Holy Roman Empire, German Heiliges Römisches Reich, Latin Sacrum Romanum Imperium, the varying complex of lands in western and central Europe ruled over first by Frankish and then by German kings for 10 centuries, from Charlemagne’s coronation in 800 until the renunciation of the imperial title in 1806." → Encyclopedia Britannica

versus

"The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic and complex union of territories in Central Europe existing from 962 to 1806. It was ruled by an emperor who was elected by powerful princes." → Wikipedia

Can you notice the differences? --IIIraute (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and unfortunately it's not an improvement. "Complex" is used in the Britannica version, appropriately, as a a noun. In the 2nd version, it has become an adjective, expressing someone's opinion about the empire, and the same is true of the word "powerful": electors were relatively powerful within the Empire, certainly, but not always relative to nations outside the Empire -- particularly the ecclesiastic princes. FactStraight (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Worse, they don't even agree on when the Empire existed! The Britannica version is correct and better all around. I agree with FactStraight about the poor word choices in our version. The lede gets no better as you move beyond its first sentence: "Century by century the Emperor lost power. . ." Srnec (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Months ago I revamped the intro using EB and a couple of other sources as a guide, an effort I saw as a starting point, not a resolution. That version has been much rearranged since, including the addition of phrases such as "century by century," reinforcing the muddle. The description of the entity - "complex", "political union", "empire", etc. - is one difficulty, but the key issue remains the starting date problem, which draws in ever more distinctions and conflicting statements. We can discuss that point endlessly, but what is needed is some excellent sources discussing the issue head on. I would propose that a draft version of the lede be developed here, rather than the piecemeal changes that have plagued the version in the article.  Unfortunately, I am currently swamped with work on other projects, and I am removed for the time being from access to the sort of research library necessary to identify and work with such sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - I already did a couple of changes to the first paragraph of the lede, but did not touch the more complex issues. A draft version sounds like a good idea. --IIIraute (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there agreement that the start date ought to be the more traditional date of 800? Srnec (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd like to see better sources discussing this issue. Note 5 of the article, citing EB, states, "Charlemagne and his successors assumed variations of the title emperor, but none termed themselves Roman emperor until Otto II in 983." Thus EB ostensibly generates a conflict within itself, making it a shaky source on its own. Gascoigne, the (so-so) source from note 6, states, "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.... The coronation of Otto I by pope John XII in 962 marks a revival of the concept of a Christian emperor in the west ... [and] an unbroken line of Holy Roman emperors lasting for more than eight centuries" ensues (a claim disputed above). The date of 800 also suggests that the Carolingian Empire becomes the HRE or becomes co-existent with it, or at any rate raises questions regarding the transition. This is why I went with the 962 date in my rewrite and tried to explain that discrepancy, but obviously that has been disputed as well. So ... a solid source discussing this with authority is much needed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So here are three reliable sources that place the start of the Holy Roman Empire at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. Other encyclopedias, including Encyclopedia Britannica, agree with this start. The year 800 should be qualified by a description of the historical development of the empire, but presenting a tenth century start is misleading and contradicts a century of established scholarship. Bede735 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, EB further states that no one used the term Roman emperor until Otto II, so its conclusive statement of a starting date is questionable. Bryce states 800 as a starting date but notes that the date is imprecise and requires elaboration, advising one "to speak less of events than of principles," and emphasizing the evolution of an institution as opposed to a discrete starting point of a State. Wilson notes that Charlemagne forged a bond "that was to form the basis of what became the Holy Roman Empire," in contrast to saying he formed the HRE itself. I'm not advocating for any particular view; I would like to see a discussion of the issue rather than a flat conclusion. But such a discussion would best be founded in a source discussing the issue directly, rather than a stated conclusion derived from various fragments. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The correct answer to the question is: Don't draw conclusions for the reader. Explain the historiographical context; explain the complex evolution of the HRE and don't rely on trite and inaccurate statements which state it was definitively founded on a Tuesday afternoon at 3:47 PM in the year 800.  Or 962.  Or any other year.  Instead, explain how historians view the gradual evolution of the central European polity from the Frankish empire to the HRE as it came to be known.  The lede does an OK job of this now, the only problematic sentence I see is the one that says "Although Charlemagne was the first to bear the title and the agglomeration grew out of his empire, Otto I is generally regarded as the founder and the date of his coronation as the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire."  If we cut that out, I think we'd be fine.  -- Jayron  32  01:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At Laszlo Panaflex, Please review WP:OR. You should be making editorial decisions based on reliable sources, and not your subjective interpretation of reliable sources. You are defining the start of the empire based on when emperors used a particular title. Bryce's approach is correct. First he identifies the beginning of the empire:
 * "Strictly speaking, it is from the year 800 A.D., when a King of the Franks was crowned Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III, that the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire must be dated."
 * Then he qualifies that statement and provides context. Heer, Wilson, and the Encyclopedia Britannica take the same approach. Unless you can cite reliable sources that place the beginning of the empire in the tenth century, you should self revert your last edit and add the appropriate qualifying statements using reliable sources—statements readily available in Bryce, Heer, Wilson, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Bede735 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted until a consensus is reached on the talk page. --IIIraute (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bede735: As I noted above, Bryce makes the flat statement of a starting date then qualifies that date heavily, while Wilson doesn't support the date 800 at all. Expanding to further sources, Cantor states that the "creation of the German monarchy was the work of Otto I the Great (936-973)" and that it was not until Otto III when a "renewal of the Roman Empire" was discussed at the German court (pp.212,215). Norman Davies (A History of Europe, 1996) supports the existing Gascoigne source, noting that after the coronation of Otto I in 962 the Empire "was destined to have a continuous existence until its destruction by Napoleon" and that he "ruled a creature which would grow into the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (pp.316-317). Davies then directly expresses the begin date of the HRE as 962 in his list of monarchs (p.1246).
 * As Jayron32 notes above, placing a date certain as a starting date for the HRE is an artificial enterprise to begin with, and all good sources are careful to describe an evolution rather than a single beginning point, and we should follow that paradigm. It is also clear that there is no consensus here for a single date certain, nor is there one in the sources because there simply was not one. Charlemagne's empire disintegrated after he died; the term emperor ended up as a title for sale and fell into abeyance completely in the 920s; Otto I claimed to be the successor of Charlemagne, but the term Roman Emperor was not applied until the late 10th century; the name HRE was not used until much later still. So we are left with a battle of the sources, and as Jayron32 states, the solution in that case is to describe the controversy for readers to evaluate. Further, the only true impetus to name a particular date is the construct of the wiki infobox, a supremely artificial necessity that strips away context in a futile and unnecessary attempt at discrete certainty. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1
The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in central Europe that began with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day in 800,(Bryce, p. 3.) was renewed and formalized with the coronation of Otto I as Holy Roman Emperor in 962,(Bryce, p. 80.) and ended when Francis II dissolved the imperial title in 1806.(Bryce, p. 366) Bede735 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong in all the wrong ways. It makes definitive statements where the preponderance of scholarship hedges.  It evolved from the Carolingian empire, it did not begin on that date.  Scholarship hedges because it doesn't begin and isn't "formalized" at one date.  It evolves slowly over time.  -- Jayron  32  02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead as it stands now is, I think, fine. Everyone who has something to say about it acknowledges that the Holy Roman Empire is a complex entity. I would only suggest that the HRE was not only a polity, it was a concept as well. The original idea was that it was the revival of the Western Roman Empire. A conceptual link between Charlemagne, Otto I, and the last Emperor of the West was made. The title was attached to a person, rather than a state. The revived Emperor was considered the lord of all Christians, just as the Pope was considered spiritual lord. The German emperors were also considered titular heads of all Christian Europe. So let's remember that when we talk about the Empire we're talking about an idea of the unity of Europe, that was real for western societies for much of the Middle Ages.Gazzster (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2
We appear to have some consensus that the lede should not choose a date certain, but the current version does so, favoring 962. My draft softens that language in the opening sentence and emphasizes the development/evolution of the HRE in the discussion of origins in the second paragraph. I've worked directly from the sources as much as possible, adding a couple of cites and links, while removing a dead link and a cite I could not verify (Kagan).

Further, the current structure of the lede seems to me to meander without logic. Here is a rough outline:
 * I a. Definition
 * b. Location
 * c. Institutions - emperor, electors, Pope
 * II Origins - Charlemagne, Otto
 * III a. Evaluation - decentralized, ltd power
 * b. Dissolution

The discussion of institutions would be better placed with the evaluation. My draft leaves the opening paragraph a bit thin, but the topics addressed flow more logically. Lastly, the final sentence on the dissolution could be separated into a final paragraph and expanded to outline the trajectory of the empire, but I am not undertaking that in this draft.
 * Your draft is good. It addresses the important points discussed above. Bede735 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. --IIIraute (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Dig it.  -- Jayron  32  02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence regarding the extent of the empire cites two sources. Only the abstract of the Taagepera is available on-line, and the article appears to focus on Russia. The lecture notes are from a small college, and I cannot find the passage supportive of this sentence. Existing sources Bryce, Johnson, and Whaley have detailed passages on the extent that are supportive of the current language. I have revised the draft to elaborate slightly, and to add these better sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Location
 * "... the varying lands of the empire ..." - maybe we can find a better formulation. --IIIraute (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The word 'varying' I took from EB, but direct links to the three sources are included, so perhaps others looking over those descriptions may improve upon this. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...or maybe even drop that part: "... though the empire included at times the Kingdom of Italy ..." for example? ...or exchange "lands" for "extent". The core lands of the empire did not "vary". --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works well. I've removed that phrasing. I also replaced "outliers" with "territories." Felt a bit awkward. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Holy Roman Empire (geographical name), 'Definition of HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE': "realm of varying extent in cen Europe in medieval & modern periods with Germany as chief component" --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you - that's fine with me. Alternative solution: "The core and largest territory of the empire was the Kingdom of Germany, though its varying extent included at times the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Bohemia, and the Kingdom of Burgundy, as well as numerous other territories." I am happy with both versions. --IIIraute (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may, I would like to again suggest that the concept of the Empire, ie., as a continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, is essential to an understanding of the origin of the medieval Empire, and needs to be referenced in the lede.Gazzster (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "developed during" in the opening sentence was important to gaining consensus and has been lost with recent tinkering. I've restored the version that found consensus before the old turmoil returns. Please discuss and gain consensus before making further changes. (Srnec: the changes today illustrate why "developed" is needed; otherwise there will be the urge to name every period, which will be unwieldy and unnecessary.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "developed during"

Infobox
Consistent with the discussion above and resulting consensus, the infobox should remain with a start date of 962. From that point forward there is an existing entity, whereas that cannot be said for 800 thru 962. The IP user(s) making that change probably won't be monitoring this discussion, but that is the policy I am following in reverting their changes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"...was a realm (Reich)"
To say in the lead that the HRE "was a realm (Reich)" strikes me as very odd. However it decayed, it was an Empire, with an Emperor and all kinds of imperial trappings. In English, in the late middle ages and the early modern period, the HRE was commonly called "the Empire" - that is, it was the only one then in town. The use in German of the less specific word Reich surely does not change what the HRE was into something less than an Empire? Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction. An empire can usually also be described as a realm. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Realm/Reich makes perfect sense. German uses the word "reich" to rescribe all kinds of states; an empire is formally a "Kaiserreich" and a kingdom is a "Königsreich" and France is "Frankreich".  Its a very generalized term in this context.  The german name for the Holy Roman Empire was actually "Heiliges Römisches Reich".  -- Jayron  32  03:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with "realm" is that it is a quaint outdated (not to say pedantic) word reserved to the poetic and literary répertoire. My Grand Robert English-French dictionary translates Realm as "literary = kingdom Royaume ("the realm of England"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with that it was not a realm, but it was a Reich, and there is no english word for Reich. Sbcloatitr (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging this article into here, as it is a fork of the Holy Roman Empire article. Mootros (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The kingdom of Germany existed before the Holy Roman Empire and did not include Italy or Burgundy, which were parts of the Empire outside Germany. The history of the Empire is mind-bogglingly complicated (far more so than that of the United Kingdom, for instance), and if these two are combined it will not bring simplicity where there is none. On a separate issue, both the Kingdom of Germany and the HRE (which are not the same thing) are surely notable in their own right. Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It made more sense merge with the East Francia article.-Ilhador- (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Some parts might well have to be moved into the East Francia article. See here: Talk:East_Francia Thanks. Mootros (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I support the merging of the Kingdom of Germany article with East Francia. They constitute the predecessor state of the Holy Roman Empire, not the empire itself. This is also the course of action the editors of the German Wikipedia have taken.--Xuxalliope (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think that mergeing is not any answer to this. In my opinion the "mind-boggling complexity is best dealt with by means of shorter articles referring to other articles in a "modular" manner.  There is a great deal of duplication across the many articles here dealing with European history during the period, say, 800 - 1800, and this makes it onerous to make any improvements to them as and changes are not easily reflected across them all.  Central articles, such as this one, should imo have their larger sections reduced into summaries and the main substance off them split off into separate articles.  Today I have been trying to drill down into the "central" confusions raised by, what seems to me to be, the propagandist spin of the time.  The provenance, distinctions, and purposes of the labels: Roman Empire, Holy Empire, and Holy Roman Empire need to be set out in order to disconnect them from the Roman Empire and link them befittingly to the German monarchy.  Questions such as who were the first emperors of which of these manifestations of the neo-Roman Empire - Charlemagne, Otto I, Lothair 1, etc, can then be appropriately  tied-in and addressed in their respective articles.  LookingGlass (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would be absurd to merge the two articles, unless of course the proposer believes there should just be one article in Wikipedia for the History of Western Europe. Would that cover it? Where did this one-size-fits-all mentality originate from? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose well than lets merge all history topics into a whole history of the world page.Sbcloatitr (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Map 1600
The Dutch Republic was not of the Holy Roman Empire at the time. This just shows how Wikipedia puts too much weight on the "Empire" label that was in reality a coalition of allied Houses made big by Charles V (in contrast to conquered). By 1600 we had long declared independence from the Spanish Empire (as early as 1568) and were waging war against them and maybe some catholic fiefdoms in Germania (it was not at all united), but also got aid from Germanic protestants. Let it be clear: we fought the Spanish Empire. The one who called himself Lord over the Netherlands was Philips II, the King of Spain. As this appears to be a quite misleading mistake, I'm going to be bold and remove it. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In 1600 the Republic was still part of the HRE. It only declared the ties with the Empire abolished in 1608. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See "A quelle époque les Provinces Unies sont-elles devenues indépendantes en droit du Saint-Empire ?" by Robert Feenstra for a detailed discussion of the problem of Netherlandish independence. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect my responsibility per WP:BRD. However, what are your claims supported by? I never heard of this "abolishment" of 1608, nor is it in the 1608 article. Are you speaking of the 1609 Twelve Years' Truce? Anyhow, Spain isn't even on that map. How can we be on the map but they aren't, if Spain directly controlled the Low Countries region?
 * Srnec, I appreciate your input on "the problem of Netherlandish [sic] independence", though still remember a remark made against me on a similar article with a similar problem: "The idea that there was no Germany before 1871 seems to be a belief peculiar to the Dutch." I am not quite sure reading that will take away the problems. Why was the HRE around 1600 led by Spanish Emperors who were no part of the HRE themselves? That is surreal. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In 1600 Rudolph II (an Austrian Habsburg) was Holy Roman Emperor. Philip II of Spain (his cousin) was Lord of his remaining fiefdoms (what remained of his Netherlands) within the HRE. The Northern Netherlands had ousted him as their sovereign in 1582 and became a Republic some years later. In 1608 the General Estates of the Republic wrote to the Emperor declaring that they regarded their ties to the HRE dissolved. Now where did I read that? I'm not sure but I think it was in H.P.H. Jansen, Lexicon geschiedenis der Lage Landen. I'm still looking for the book but this will confirm that as well. (with thanks to user:Srnec). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can read it in John Lothrop Motley's History of the United Netherlands, vol. IV, as well as the source I already cited. The usual date given for the legal end to all ties between the Provinces and the Empire is 1648, based on the Treaty of Münster, but this is itself a bit of simplification. The separation of the Provinces from the Empire began before 1568 and continued gradually until receiving its most definitive termination in 1648. I believe 1608 is the earliest clear renunciation of imperial fidelity by the States General and they refused to receive the emperor's ambassadors in the future when they were accredited to his "faithful states". Srnec (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Holy Roman Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121126113831/http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/06/German_20History/Holy__Roman__Empire/Background__seite.html to http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/06/German_20History/Holy__Roman__Empire/Background__seite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Largest cities: where's Antwerp?
Antwerp was part of the HRE, and its page states the following demographics for the city: This would have consistently puts it amongst the largest cities. 94.15.102.147 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1374: 18,000(...)
 * 1486: 40,000(...)
 * 1500: around 44/49,000 (...)
 * 1526: 50,000(...)
 * 1567: 105,000 (...)
 * 1584: 84,000 (...)
 * 1586 (May): 60,000 (...)
 * 1586 (October): 50,000
 * 1591: 46,000
 * 1621: 54,000

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Holy Roman Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101023847/http://www.historischekommission-muenchen.de/seiten/projekte.html to http://www.historischekommission-muenchen.de/seiten/projekte.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101023848/http://www.altes-reich.de/literatur.html to http://www.altes-reich.de/literatur.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Luxemburg
I deleted the entry in which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was depicted as one of the two surviving monarchies of the HRE. The (Habsburg) Duchy of Luxembourg ended in 1793. The Grand Duchy founded in 1815 was the dynastic successor state to the Principalities of Nassau-Orange and Nassau-Orange-Fulda, has a different monarchy than the Habsburg one and was a fiefdom of the Netherlands and basically a new foundation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation
The German does not have an article before 'deutscher Nation', and it would be more accurate and, perhaps, more appropriate if the English were to follow suit: 'of German nation' (Pamour (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)).

New infobox image
I propose that we use File:Map Holy Roman Empire 1789.svg as the new infobox image as it is a specialised map that includes all historical borders, not just the territory of the empire superimposed onto contemporary Europe. Thoughts? – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 08:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As it is? Certainly not. It would vanish at infobox size. Even a crop would be much too detailed I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I've tested this in the infobox and it appears to be fine. Derivatives of this map are used for many European former country articles and there has been no issue in the past. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 07:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he means that the details—the internal borders—are imperceptible at infobox size. Frankly, they don't completely resolve until you view the image at maximum size, which would require a reader to make two clicks.
 * I also think the map is mistaken, though perhaps it can be easily corrected. Milan was a part of the Empire, not merely a Habsburg possession like Hungary. Likewise, Savoy and all the Italian states north of the Papal State and west of Venice were still imperial fiefs in 1789. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do mean that. You should do a temporary test swop with the image you intend, giving a diff so we can compare. I'm not seeing a benefit now. Unlabelled, the internal areas are meaningless to anyone without an excellent knowledge of German geography (and incredibly good eyesight). At infobox size it just looks like someone has scribbled on a map. Even maximized twice it still looks like a plate of spaghetti. Derivatives with one specific area highlighted are a completely different thing. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maps and the HRE are a headache. Whalley has a special introductory note on maps in his 2012 book: : "Maps are a serious problem for any historian of the Holy Roman Empire. Only the largest format, far exceeding what is possible on the average-sized book, are capable of reflecting the complexity of the territorial arrangement in the early modern Reich. Even some regional maps would need to be quite large to show accurately the fragmented nature of many territories ...The maps contained in this book can only provide a very rough general orientation."
 * Personally, I don't like the current infobox map very much as it only shows the outside borders (which were very fluid, and are incorrectly represented on that map (the Netherlands, the Swiss cantons, the Rep. of Genoa, were de facto outside the HRE in 1600). The proposed "spaghetti" map is fine with me: that's how the HRE was.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So we should just say to the reader - "there you are, it's such a complicated mess you can't hope to grasp it?" I'm no fan of the current map, or indeed putting any map in the tiny infobox size (indeed I could live without an infobox). A different date, in the High Middle Ages when the Empire mattered more, might be better. Preferably outside the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
the coat of arms displayed in the infobox is not the one of the holy roman empire! it is of the austrian empire with the austrian emperors-crown on it. and it displays several habsburg held/claimed countries and territories, which were not part of the hre like hungary, kingdom of jerusalem etc. but does not contain such countries as saxony and bavaria. instead the coat of arms further down (Double-headed eagle with coats of arms of individual states, symbol of the Holy Roman Empire (painting from 1510)) should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.197.201 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Garbled lede
Although I am not criticizing this article, nor its contributors, in a generally negative way, it does seem to me that the lede should provide basic info about the date upon which the Holy Roman Empire began. Even if it was a gradual name-change, more attention should be paid to stating the year in which the Holy Roman Empire was officially established, or at least a century!77Mike77 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the lede already covers this topic in some detail. —DIY Editor (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Any article about an empire should state, in the lede, when it began, and when it ended. Failure to do that makes in non-encyclopedic.77Mike77 (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence says clearly that it was dissolved in 1806. The second paragraph deals with the issue of when it began. What is the problem? Srnec (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion above, Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire, regarding how the lede deals with the beginning date. We follow the sources as best as we can, but the sources conflict on the beginning date. What they agree upon is an evolution of the institutions we call the HRE over time. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede really couldn't be any more clear. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe OP means the first paragraph by lede. This article is a complicated topic and I think the introduction to it is comprehensible. It's actually quite good. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the infobox
The infobox was a mess. It contradicted itself, and it implied that Otto I may have been crowned in 800CE! I decided to be bold, and have re-written the appropriate sections to clearly mention both Otto and Charlemagne (as that seemed to be what was intended), and have placed the appropriate footnote on all such places, to let readers know that Charlemagne's status as founder of the HRE is disputed (I don't know exactly how correct this is, but do not want to cause an argument by changing the footnote).

On a technical note: I changed the emperors' designation from "deputy" to "leader". This has no visible effect on the page, I am just a pedant.

The infobox is now both correct (as far as I can see) and self-consistent. I hope that my boldness does not cause too much controversy, and for the sake of all that is holy, please don't just revert the edit. If you must remove references to Charlemagne, please do it in a way that makes the infobox consistent with itself. And please consider letting it stand, it took a lot of work to figure out exactly how to get that damned template to do what I wanted. Quantum Burrito (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

formatting garbage?
The material following this first sentence is what I see at the top of this article:

|leader2 = Jesus, Holy Roman Emperor Jesus (first) |leader3 = Francis II (last) |year_leader1 = 800–814 |year_leader2 = 962–973 |year_leader3 = 1792–1806 |title_leader = Emperor.


 * today = — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Definition
I would like to discuss the definition of the Holy Roman Empire. In the past, definitions #1 through #9 have been used by this page:


 * 1) a political conglomeration of lands
 * 2) a political association of lands
 * 3) a mainly Central European conglomeration of lands
 * 4) a conglomeration of sub-states
 * 5) a union of territories
 * 6) a realm
 * 7) a varying complex of lands
 * 8) a complex political union of territories
 * 9) a multi-ethnic complex of territories
 * 10) a multinational agglomeration of territories

An edit I made earlier today changed the definition from #9 to #10. I changed the word multi-ethnic to multinational, because the empire was not defined along ethnic, or multi-ethnic, lines. Ethnicity doesn't seem to be relevant to its definition and therefore sounds out of place. Instead I used the word multinational, which I borrowed from the Czech version of this article. Changing the word "complex" to "agglomeration" was a rather arbitrary decision aided by Voltaire's quote at the bottom of this paragraph.

78.128.163.122 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see the development of the intro, here: Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire/Archive_5. The term complex comes from the cited source, EB. The term multi-ethnic also entered during this development. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I can now see why "complex" is preferable, but there is no justification for the term multi-ethnic. 78.128.163.122 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Multi-ethnic complex" sounds like a Wikipedianism for "empire". I think the lead should begin "The Holy Roman Empire was a sovereign state in central Europe from the Middle Ages until its dissolution in 1806." Srnec (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

de italics
see User talk:Doremo -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Sacrum Imperium"
The most important expression is missing so far: "Sacrum Imperium". This expression might have been first used by Rainald von Dassel (12th century), meaning "Holy Empire" in an universal and Christian sense. --16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Source?
"Atlas of Europe in the Middle Ages", Ostrovski, Rome, 1998 Has no link, an extensive google search hasn't brought back answers, the only references seem to be from Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.12.91 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't find it either. Removed (and the info also). Srnec (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Ernio48 use neutral (Non-German and Non-Polish) sources
You asked me to provide solid evidence that Prussia, Eastern Pomerania and Silesia were not parts of the HRE in the 1100s-1200s (during the Hohenstaufen dynasty). That's not how it works - you are the one who is supposed to provide evidence that they were part of the HRE. I can indeed provide solid evidence that they were not, but I don't have time right now, and the burden of proof is on you. To my knowledge (and this can be easily verified), Eastern Pomerania was conquered by the Teutonic Order in 1308-1309, not before that. And it doesn't even mean, that it became part of the HRE - because the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia was never part of the HRE. As for Silesia - it became part of the Bohemian Crown (and therefore also part of the HRE, because the Bohemian Crown was a member state of the HRE) also during the 1300s, not before that. Please provide neutral source showing that those lands were parts of the HRE already in the 1100s and 1200s.

You linked a German map - not a neutral source, especially if made during times of Polish-German disputes.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Map by Ernio48
While I am not opposed to a full extent map in the infobox, a map in German as the lead map on the English language page is of limited value. Further, this map does not show the context of current boundaries well, and some of it is apparently chopped off, further limiting the context. I agree with Srnec that the 1600 map is preferable. (There is further discussion of the infobox map in Archive 5.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be replaced with that other map which is much more detailed. Current borders have nothing to do with what was then perceived as an ethnicity nor with ethnic distribution back then, so I don't see a point, at all, in having current boundaries in that map. Why would you include it anyway when these were completely different times, and regions like Silesia, Lubusz, Pomerania (now in Poland) were not at all Polish but mostly German? This creates a false narrative "because HRE was partly in what is now Poland there were tons of Poles in Silesia". Plus, as I pointed out earlier that 1600 map has a problem with its frame (only upper and left part is framed). If you are going to replace it, at least insert a map with no damage and of a decent quality.Ernio48 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When did Silesia become mostly German in your opinion? This map shows languages around year 1600: http://www.mokrzyccy.pl/mapy/mapa18.jpg
 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Current borders are helpful to give general readers an understanding of where the empire was in a context they are familiar with. This map appears to crop some of the borders off, as well as surrounding territories that provide context. And I'm not seeing any framing problems with the 1600 map. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can provide a replacement in .svg format showing the greatest extent superimposed on today's borders. Would all editors be happy with such solution?Ernio48 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's good. Until then, the consensus map should be restored. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Holy Roman Empire at its territorial apex.svg Proposed map is on the right. It is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg and the map I provided from the Meyers Lexikon (currently in the infobox). Papacy is in purple as it was often in feud with the Holy Roman Emperor and somewhat independent, Venice is in green as it wasn't in the HRE but nevertheless maintained close ties, Kingdom of Sicily is in pale yellow as it was in personal union with the Holy Roman Emperor.Ernio48 (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am rather color blind, and I cannot discern some of the subtle color differences. Are Sicily and Italy the same color as the HRE here? Can you use colors that contrast a little better? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected to orange. I think we should keep a warm color for both HRE and Sicily, indicating personal union between the two. Is it better now?Ernio48 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at that map.The provinces in the eastern part of Belgium, in 1250, weren't they possessions of the dukes of Burgundy, in theory a vassal of the king of France? And the huge County of Provence, wasn't it in the orbit of the Kingdom of France as well? Somehow, I don't see Marseille as having been part of the Holy Roman Empire.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)::
 * First off, I appreciate the comment. This map is not a detailed one and was based on a much more detailed one, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg You can verify these questions there.Ernio48 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The map should only show the Holy Roman Empire. Not Sicily, not Venice, not the Papal State. It requires an unnecessarily long caption and it isn't clear to the casual reader why they of all states are coloured. Especially when the underlying map has modern political boundaries on it. It's just not helpful. (I'd prefer the c.1600 map we had before to a multi-coloured partial map of Europe.)
 * Provence was definitely a part of the Empire at the time. Marseille was one of the cities to openly support Alfonso X's election. The Dukes of Burgundy had not yet acquired territory in the Low Countries in 1250. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All that is explained in footnotes. Feel free to expand them where necessary. Historians tend to mention/connect/include all of these territories to/in the HRE on other maps I've come across. Definitions vary depending on historian (as seen in the Meyers Lexikon that included Kingdom of Sicily as part of HRE + some people challange the actual status of the Papal States and exclude it from the HRE + a number other disputes). HRE is a very complex and complicated topic and we as editors should not omit any version of what was actually HRE and what was not. Four mere colors on a map that give an overall overview is good minimizing already.Ernio48 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about a single-colored map that includes the HRE proper and the Papal States only?Ernio48 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. I don't mind showing the Papal State as part of the HRE under the Staufer. Srnec (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Provence (and Marseille) had been ruled by the Counts of Toulouse, then the Aragonese House of Barcelona from the early 12th cent., then passed to Charles of Anjou, Count of Anjou, youngest son of King Louis VIII of France, when he married the Barcelona heiress in 1246. By 1250, Provence had long ceased to have any link with the Holy Roman Empire.That map should reflect that.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Provence was divided in 1125. The counts of Toulouse came to govern the marquisate, while the House of Barcelona governed the county. (I'd have to check, but Marseille was a part of the county. I think it might have been a bone of contention between Barcelona and Toulouse and I can't say if it was ever under the rule of the counts of Toulouse or not.) Both houses were vassals, however autonomous in practice, of the Holy Roman Emperors. (You can see Frederick II enfeoffing Raymond VII with the marquisate of Provence here.) Imperial claims on the entire Kingdom of Arles essentially lapse with the death of Charles IV (1378), but it wasn't until the 1480s that Provence actually became a part of the Kingdom of France. In my opinion, it should be shown as part of the Empire until 1378. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"The Holy Roman Empire at its greatest extent in the early to middle 13th century during the Hohenstaufen dynasty (1155–1268) superimposed on modern state borders"; but Kingdom of Sicily (Henry VI and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor) ? The map is misleading (greatest extent)--2.232.70.45 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was concluded we won't include neither Kingdom of Sicily nor Venice on that map.Ernio48 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as Venice is concerned, if you look at an enlargment of the map, you will notice that Venice is not included. The mainland possessions of Venice c. 1200 (at least according to a map in Haverkamp's Medieval Germany 1056-1273) amounted to very little. They were limited to just a few narrow stretches of the coast. The infobox map do show those coastal stretches as outside the Empire. As for Sicily, Haverkamp's map does not show the K. of Sicily as belonging to the Empire. --Lubiesque (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is misleading.. for example Sardinia and not kingdom of Sicily (Hohenstaufen dinasty)? Sorry but the selection criteria are not scientific (I do not seem encyclopedic); the previous map shows the territories belonging to the empire of the Houstaufen dynasty. I propose the map posted here Holy Roman Empire at its territorial apex.svg for Hohenstaufen dinasty. --2.232.70.45 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although ruled by the Staufer, Sicily was not a part of the Empire. On that pretty much everyone agrees, although it is true that the emperors claimed it from Charlemagne to Lothair III. The Staufer, however, had a strong and effectual claim as the heirs of Roger II, and to appease the Papacy (who also claimed suzerainty over Sicily) the Empire and Sicily were kept distinct. This isn't supposed to be a map of Staufer rule, but rather a map of the Holy Roman Empire at its greatest extent (in theory). Corsica and Sardinia were definitely part of the claim, and during the Staufer period there was some effort to assert the claim (i.e., crowning Barisone and Enzo as kings of Sardinia). Srnec (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not true; it is misleading. The most important historians on the Hohenstaufen dinasty declare that Sicily was part of the HRE with Henry VI and the union is perpetuated with Frederick II (obviously reassuring the pope, after his father's death) ... the so-called UNIO REGNI AD IMPERIUM is includes from Henry VI to Frederick II.


 * Wolfgang Stürner Friedrich II. (= Gestalten des Mittelalters und der Renaissance.). 2 Bände. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1992–2000; Der Kaiser 1220–1250.
 * Norbert Kamp, this is the article on Treccani federiciana (milestone on the study of the Hounstaufen)
 * Peter Csendes, this is the article on Treccani federiciana
 * Theo Kölzer: UNIO REGNI AD IMPERIUM (Treccani) ; sorry...but your answers are totally misleading.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It was not a real union, but a personal one. In the kingdom of Sicily, the Staufer did not rely on ancient rights (as they tried time and again down to Lothair III), but on the rights of the Norman kings (vassals of the popes). The administration of the empire and that of Sicily were separate. Frederick II continually assured the pope that he was not trying to create a real union (which would have abrogated the pope's rights). It's complicated, to be sure, but it is not what you say. See, e.g., Abulafia, Frederick II, pp. 136–7. Srnec (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is misleading...the previous sources are a certainty on this (unio regni ad imperium) .... and Abulafia has its point of view on the nature of this union; Above all, Abulafia is not a historian of the Hohenstaufen (his work is not taken into consideration at all) I have cited fundamental and monumental works on the subject. This point is very clear even in the most critical studies towards Frederick II and father as: * Hubert Houben (historian) Kaiser Friedrich II. Kohlhammer, 2007 Stuttgart. Friedrich reassures the Pope to be able to be crowned emperor. Frederick II did not keep the short with the Pope; I do not renounce the Kingdom of Sicily. Union of Sicily in the HRE represents the maximum expansion by the empire under Hohenstaufen dinasty...yet, the agreement between the Pope and Frederick II was not official and was not signed by the German princes; in all this Sicily remained de facto and de jure part of the empire (from the union made by Henry). Other details... even the imperial chancery in this period is based in Palermo in the Kingdom of Sicily. Sorry, but the current map of the page is unbearable. Moreover, the motivation for Sardinia (without Sicily) is completely misleading --2.232.70.45 (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire never included Prussia (this is why the Hohenzollerns could become kings of Prussia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I_of_Prussia#King_in_Prussia

See this animated map showing the evolution of HRE borders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3it0qKZPh8

The map in the Infobox is wrong. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The map does not depict the situation of the 17th century, but that of the 13th. At that time the Empire had a claim to suzerainty over the lands of the Teutonic Order through the Golden Bull of Rimini. I'm not sure if the map is a good depiction of the actual state of things on the ground, but including the Prussian lands of the Teutonic Knights as part of the Empire on a map of the 13th-century is fine. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So why the YouTube video I linked doesn't show these lands as part of the HRE? The burden of proof is on the maker of the map - what sources did he use? Including Eastern Pomerania is certainly wrong because the Teutonic Order did not even control those lands in the 13th century, they conquered them in 1308-1309:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_takeover_of_Danzig


 * Also Silesia was not yet part of the Holy Roman Empire in the 1200s, it became part of it (after being annexed by the Bohemian Crown) in the 1300s:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Silesia#Kingdom_of_Bohemia


 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of youtubers who make those "video-maps" on youtube make one mistake or another, although there are some good ones like EmperorTiger or OllieBye who provide really reliable content. The infobox map based exactly on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg Ernio48 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not a neutral source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire#Ernio48_use_neutral_(Non-German_and_Non-Polish)_sources


 * That's not even a real source, it is just another Wikipedia map, probably also made by you, or by some of your friends?


 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. Keep drinking and rock on.Ernio48 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You are weird. I will make my own map in GIMP and I will use solid references, unlike you. So your map will be replaced.


 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Don't forget to obtain that little thing called consensus before you replace it. This whole long section was about getting it for the current map in the infobox.Ernio48 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So apparently no any historians took part in this discussion. Even this file shows that your map is wrong:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#/media/File:HRR.gif


 * And the You Tube video I linked has no mistakes. You are basically deliberately falsifying history here.
 * I linked you to the article about Hohenzollern Prussia, which says:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Prussia#Establishment
 * "In return for an alliance against France in the War of the Spanish Succession, the Great Elector's son, Frederick III, was allowed to elevate Prussia to a kingdom in 1701. Frederick crowned himself "King in Prussia" as Frederick I on 18 January. Legally, no kingdoms could exist in the Holy Roman Empire except for Bohemia. However, Frederick took the line that since Prussia had never been part of the empire and the Hohenzollerns were fully sovereign over it, he could elevate Prussia to a kingdom." - what is unclear about that? Teutonic Order's lands were not part of the HRE.


 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The file you provided is correct, but shows frames only (closest years to what we are talking about here are 1181 and 1378). The infobox map is for a frame in the Hohenstaufen era 1155–1268 (in one of those years the HRE reached its territorial peak, possibly in the year 1250 or so). Kingdom of Prussia and the Teutonic Order are two different things separated by almost 200 years from one another.Ernio48 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Also this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg says: The map is a vectorised version of this map from Professor G. Droysens Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas, which was published in 1886 by R[ichard] Andree.Ernio48 (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Why not use the animated map the other Wiki use?--Moxy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be for it if someone incorporated the territorial peak year (c. 1200 - c. 1250) into it.Ernio48 (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be possible but need to leave out the Pope claim Historical Map of the Holy Roman Empire under the Hohenstaufen, 1138-1254 - University of Texas at Austin. Historical Atlas by William Shepherd ]. Will message a few for help-Moxy (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That animation implies the loss of Italy in 1648, which is incorrect. Srnec (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the HRE in 1250: https://i.imgur.com/99GnH1O.png and 1200-1250: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3it0qKZPh8#t=2m30s
 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder who's more reliable: 19th century German cartographer or a random 21st century youtuber?Ernio48 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay you know what, I asked a question about HRE borders in the 1200s on Polish history forum, so far there is no conclusive answer, if you want you can register and participate in discussion as well (there is an English-language subforum there - I started two threads, one in English and one in Polish).
 * English language subforum: http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=173784
 * HRE subforum (in Polish): http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=173759
 * Translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycy.org%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D173759&sandbox=1
 * I asked them if your map is correct. Let's see what they say. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on my knowledge (I thought it was common knowledge - "manifestum non eget probatione"):
 * 1) West Pomerania became part of the HRE in 1181-1227 (1181 = Bogislaw I pledged allegiance to the Emperor, 1227 = battle of Bornhöved):
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogusław_I,_Duke_of_Pomerania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bornhöved_(1227)#Results
 * 2) Most of Silesia became part of the Czech Crown (and therefore of the HRE) only during the 1300s.
 * 3) Land Lebus became part of Brandenburg (so the HRE) only since 1249 onwards (see maps of expansion of Brandenburg east of the Oder):
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkQ-wptfbGI see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubusz_Land#Kingdom_of_Poland
 * 4) Kulmerland (given to the Teutonic Order by Konrad of Mazovia) and Prussia were never parts of the HRE, only of Teutonic State.
 * 5) Pomerelia (Pommerellen) was Polish until 1308-1309, when it was captured by Teutonic Knights. But it was never in the HRE.
 * 6) Generally lands of the Teutonic Order were NOT part of the HRE, they were directly subordinated to the Pope, not the Emperor.
 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)