Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 7

Maps - Kingdom of Italy
Why do maps of the Empire on this page depict it as completely absent from Italy after 1648, when much of northern Italy was still claimed by the Empire up to the day of its dissolution, a claim that often did have actual power on the ground? For example, following the extinction of the Spanish Habsburgs in 1700, the Emperor proclaimed Milan a vacant Imperial fief and added it to his direct Austrian dominions in 1707 (confirmed by the Treaty of Rastatt at the end of the War of the Spanish succession). As another example, Francis I of Habsburg-Lorraine was declared Grand Duke of Tuscany by Imperial diploma. For yet another, the justification for abolishing the Duchy of Mantua and incorporating it into Austrian Lombardy was that the Gonzaga of Mantua had committed felony towards the Holy Roman Emperor.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My understanding has always been that northern Italy (‘Imperial Italy’) formally left the HRE (with Switzerland) with the Peace of Westphalia, albeit various players tried to revive the claim subsequently when it suited politically. Certainly, all the WP:RS maps I’ve seen reflect this e.g. see the 1648 map in this Britannica article or page xix of this. There are plenty of others that are similar in mainstream texts. Having said that, I’ve just tried to find a source to back that up as being a provision of the P. of W. and I couldn’t find it - and there plenty of references to Switzerland leaving. It’s tempting to think that Italy may have left de facto but remained in de jure but that wouldn’t make much sense because Italy was de facto outside for a long time before 1648. It had been a “formality” for centuries already. But something changed in 1648 anyway, but what? So, I’m curious if this is fully discussed anywhere (rather than passing references to Italy being inside or outside post-1648). DeCausa (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that in this edit you make assertions about the population of the HRE including the Italian territories because they were part of the HRE. I’m reverting that edit for the time being because one of the citations failed verification (Somerville - it didn’t support the info claimed), another is to Wikipedia, which we can’t do anyway (see WP:CIRCULAR) and the third ( J.A. P. Jones. "Europe, 1500-1600), well I can’t actually access that but I don’t see how it can be used for a statement about 1700 given its scope. Including any population statistics for Italy post 1648 would contravene WP:SYNTH unless the source explicitly also says Italy was within the HRE. DeCausa (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the 1648 treaties and there's nothing related to the status of Italy. There are however many cases of documentation of various Italian rules being referred to as subjects of the Emperor well into the 19th century.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Lubiesque
 * As I say, given that we have WP:RS maps taking Italy out of the HRE in 1648, we need reliable secondary sources to directly confirm any other position. WP:PRIMARY precludes that sort of reference to the treaties or 19th century documentation. It would stray into WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable secondary source then. Joachim Whaley's "Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806", from the Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, p.109-110, explicitly states that the imperial fiefs in Italy still existed post-Westphalia and and that the Habsburg interventions were nominally reasserting the Emperor's official power of them: "Leopold had most the most elaborate preparations for the Spanish crisis of the 1660s, pursuing a more active Italian policy than any emperor since Rudolf II in the 1580s. The problem had not changed over the intervening century. In Italy there was a network of some 250-300 fiefdoms of the empire, remnants of the Italian regnum, whose heyday had been in the thirteen and fourteenth centuries... As late as 1678, Leopold simply invested the [Spanish] governor of Milan with the powers of plenipotentiary for Italy, an office that had not been filled since the reign of Emperor Matthias and whose functions had been exercised rather haphazardly by the Reichshofrat in Vienna, and many of the smaller fiefdoms continued to regard Vienna as their protector against more powerful territories such as the papacy... Lists of fiefdoms were drawn up with the help of Spanish officials. In 1687, a new imperial plenipotentiary was appointed. In 1690-1691, Prince Eugene tried for the first time to levy an imperial tax in Italy to support the war effort. Then, in 1696, an edict ordered all vassals [of the Emperor] to present their deeds of enfeoffment and to renew their oaths of allegiance within a year and a day on pain of forfeit. The renewal of fiefdoms incensed the papacy, some of whose own vassals now dug out ancient documents ostensibly proving them to be vassals of the Emperor. In Vienna, there was a growing determination that Milan, which would become vacant on the death of Carlos II, should revert to the crown... Significantly, while both Leopold and Joseph renounced their rights to Spain, they retained ownership of Milan and the Marquisate of Finale as escheated imperial fiefs." Then on p. 112: "the revival of imperial prerogatives was carried out in the name of the Reich. Indeed, the policy of re-establishing imperial fiefdoms and of reasserting the authority of the Reichshofrat in northern Italy was encouraged by the Electors... Clearly, invoking the rights of the Reich and the emperor's coronation oath, which obliged him to seek to return all alienated fiefs to the Reich, was a pretext for the creation of a new Austrian sphere of interest." There are other lines in the same volume referring to various Italian territories as imperial fiefs more generally.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You two may be interested in this. I think it is available online somewhere. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The emperor renounced the empire's rights in Italy in the 1801 treaty of Lunéville (text), having previously agreed the same in the 1797 treaty of Campo Formio (text). Key words: "Sa Majesté l'empereur, roi de Hongrie et de Bohême, reconnaît la république cisalpine comme puissance indépendante." Srnec (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That further confirms the formal dominion of the Empire over northwest Italy until the 19th century.--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the text of these two treaties. You will see that nowhere is there even a tacit recognition that the Empire had exercised a formal dominion over northwest Italy.
 * "Why do maps of the Empire on this page depict it as completely absent from Italy after 1648, when much of northern Italy was still claimed by the Empire up to the day of its dissolution". Whaley's map also depicts the Empire as absent from Italy in 1648. The fact that the Emperor claimed, and exercised at times, important feudal rights over a varying number of Italians vassals, even transforming Milan into a dynastic possession, does not make those vassals members of the HRE. Certainly there were feudal links between the Empire, and above all the Emperor as suzerain, and the Italian states, but these feudal links did not make them part of the Empire. Which may explain why maps don't show the northwestern Italian states as part of the Empire during the Early Modern Period--Lubiesque (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Even at the end of the eighteenth century, Reichsitalien extended over some 250–300 fiefs involving some 50–70 families. But these territories were not subject to the jurisdiction of the imperial courts and paid no imperial taxes. Johann Jacob Moser, the great eighteenth century commentator on the law of the Reich, repeatedly stated in his works that Italy unquestionably belonged to the Reich, but that it had no real link with Germany." -Whaley, "From Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, 1490-1648", p. 20-21. Italy was officially part of the Empire until Campo Formio/Lunéville and there's no real debate to be had on that subject. The amount of de facto authority granted to the emperor varied depending on the place and time, but that's true for literally every part of the empire (e.g. p. 74 of the same book notes that, from 1494 to 1500, the Duke of Milan contributed more to the imperial treasury than all the German Estates combined).--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Imperial Italy was part of the feudal structure (in German: "Reichslehensverband") of the Empire until Campo Formio. It was not integrated in the Imperial Circles (just like Bohemia; the exception being Savoy) and did not pay regular imperial taxes like the "Reichstürkenhilfe". But it was not entirely excluded from imperial jurisdiction. Subjects of the Italian fiefs could and did sue their liege lords at the Aulic Council. Those trials could last for decades (no difference to the Kammergericht) but eventually the judgements would be enforced (an excellent German source is Karl Otmar von Aretin: Reichsitalien von Karl V. bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches. Die Lehensordnungen in Italien und ihre Auswirkungen auf die europäische Politik. In: Aretin: Das Reich. Friedensordnung und europäisches Gleichgewicht 1648–1806. pp. 76–163.). Thus the exact status of Imperial Italy is complicated, it never left the Empire until 1797/1801 (especially not 1648) but neither was it ever fully integrated. The inclusion in maps is no precise evidence as historic maps tends to reduce complexity to stay understandable. Whaley does not include it, Peter Wilson does in "The Holy Roman Empire 1495-1806". It was not a core, institutionalized part of the Empire, but its formal belonging to the Empire is not really disputed.--Palastwache (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with what @Lubiesque and @Palastwache mentioned: yeah, it was a de jure state of the Empire until the Napoleon times, but not in the way its being mentioned in the article in these last edits, as if it were a completely part of the empire. i see the claims of the "emperors" much more like a feudal thing than as something that was actually happening in practice. In my opinion, these last edits are pushing too hard to show that the HRE was like a "real" empire in the early modern era (such as the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, etc), something it was actually not, at least since the year 1200 (as it "started to fall apart" and the various princes, lords, bishops possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence). This fact is even worse if you consider that with these latest editions, you want to show the Italian territories as an integral part of the empire. So, yeah de jure it was part of the Empire until Napoleon, but in practice it was much more independent than these latest editions are trying to show. As I have said here countless times, the first time the Habsburgs became "de facto" sovereigns of some part of Italy were in the 18th century (decades before the dissolution of the Empire), and only after the ruling families were extinct. (the only different case was Milan which became part of the Spanish Empire, and was ruled a state of the Spanish Crown without any interference of the HRE). Nelosj96 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I said this in the edit history, but the Habsburgs were directly ruling Italian states since the 14th century with the annexation of the Free Imperial City of Trieste, followed by the County of Gorizia and Gradisca in 1500.--Nihlus1 (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Peter H. Wilson's definition of 'Imperial Italy' in Heart of Europe (2020) is all about the emperor as feudal overlord and very little about the Empire: "The part of northern Italy under the emperor's feudal jurisdiction that included Milan, Savoy, Genoa, Parma, Tuscany, Mantua, Solferino and other smaller principalities."--Lubiesque (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * in the box part with the italian states mentioned, I think the most correct would be to add only the population of the Kingdom of Italy, since the mentioned states are not complete and in the way that its shown it seems that the Italian states were the only ones completely connected to empire, which in reality, as well discussed here, was not the truth.Nelosj96 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A better place for the whole box of Italian demographics might be the article regarding Imperial Italy.--Palastwache (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i completely agree, here in the article of the HRE I believe it should only be added (perhaps with a box) the populations from the major HRE subdivisions: Burgundy (Netherlands and Belgium), Kingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Germany and Bohemia. It's much simpler and fairer. Nelosj96 (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Italian states and German/Czech electorates are both there, and both are valid subdivisions worth listing for demographic purposes. Collectively they constitute the largest 'states' of the HRE (along with the Spanish holdings), which is useful to have at a glance when Wikipedia otherwise seemingly goes out of its way to make the HRE's demographics as confusing as possible (e.g. rarely defining what "the HRE" actually means in any given citation, noting that it encompasses "hundreds of states" without noting that most of those are meaninglessly tiny or that many of them were ruled by the same sovereign in a similar manner as many medieval/early modern polities).--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * the discussion here was why add two boxes that only contain information about the italian states, and no boxes about the other various regions of the empire, since the italian parts were much less connected to the empire than the others, as mentioned here by everyone in the discussion. these boxes should be at least on the kingdom of italy page, not here.Nelosj96 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The populations of the German and Czech electorates in the early 17th century are already listed, as is a breakdown in the early 18th century. So that's not even correct. Italy got a box because there was detailed and relevant demographic data available on its subdivisions and this page has a section specifically for subdivision demographics, no other reason is required. Your subjective declaration of how "connected" it was doesn't factor in.--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * if you really want to "italianize" the HRE, you have a long way to go, as the entire article here shows the empire as a much more German-related thing, which according to you shouldn't be, since the largest cities in the HRE were actually mostly Italians... Nelosj96 (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you're spinning weird agendas that exist only in your head (to the point of making false statements about publicly-viewable content). I'm listing these populations on the demographics subsection because they're large autonomous entities that are officially a part of a confederation (like many of the other HRE states). None of that is really in dispute. Other than a subjective distaste for the article including information about Imperial Italy at all, what exactly is the objection?--Nihlus1 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "no other reason is required". One has to admire the imperious, not to say imperial tone of Nihlus1, our new boss. Class dismissed! --Lubiesque (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I will stop the discussion here. by the way, our subjectives declarations about the independece of the Italian states are as much "subjective" as some declarations calling "meaninglessly tiny" the others 300+ states that didn't have a size or a population like the major ones... Anyway, thank God that there are still people who understand history as we see in other language wikipedias (such as in the German, Italian, French and Dutch ones), with a little more realistic reasoning about what the empire really was. And... good luck to @lubiesque, @Palastwache and everyone who can deal with the ignorance (mixed with the lack of understanding in studies) of some people here. Peace out Nelosj96 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nihlus1: I think the main objection is the exceedingly precise description of Italian demographics here while large principalities in Germany are absent (e. g. the Bishopric of Münster, Hesse-Kassel, or the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel as major examples of their type of Estate - but precise demographics for them are maybe not available). The Italian states were objectivly looser connected to the Empire (e. g. no representation in the diet except Savoy, not under jurisdiction of the Kammergericht, no validity of Imperial laws like the Ewiger Landfriede). Their demographics are very useful, but regarding this article maybe not as a whole. Genoa for example might have had the loosest connection to the Empire of every Imperial Estate, so their demographics are not really needed in this article. Milan and Savoy in contrast are well worth mentioning in detail. You could summarize the Italian demographics here with examples of the largest and most important states, and move the box with the complete demographics to the Imperial Italy article.--Palastwache (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would've inserted more demographics on the German states if I could've found them - and I did with what was available, in both territory and population. Also, something notable I just discovered: Peter Wilson's "Heart of Europe" still shows Imperial Italy within the HRE after Westphalia in its map of the Empire dated 1648.--Nihlus1 (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A shame that you forgot to look at his next map, titled The Empire in 1792. You would have noticed that it does not show Imperial Italy within the borders of the Empire. --Lubiesque (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Did the "Holy Roman Empire" truly ever end?
The so-called "Holy Roman Empire" may not have ever dissolved, at least not legally. The "Vatican City", a state in its own right, has retained ownership over all ecclesiastical holdings throughout its reign, which has never truly been interrupted from 781, when Pepin, son of Charlemagne, was named "King of the Lombards": and Pepin, born Carloman, was crowned with the "Iron Crown of Lombardy" by Pope Adrian I in the same year. That the "Holy Roman Empire" was given a "mouth" in 781 following the "abomination of desolation" in 751 (751 and 781 dates are not directly found in the Bible), when the common-law and Ten Commandment-law friendly Merovingians were thrust out of power by the Carolingians, is testament to the fact that an 1806 demise to the "Holy Roman Empire's" term of possessing a "mouth speaking great things and blasphemies" is likely closer to 2023. (This calculation takes into theory that (((360/365.25)(1260))=~1241.889...) roughly equates a translation for 1,260 "days" (years) for conversion of Hebrew calendar to Gregorian calendar. Add ~1,241.889+781, or the equivalent calculation for 1,290 to 751, and one may find a near-answer.) Whether the calculation is correct or not (and I do not claim it to be exactly correct), consider that the Papacy has never renounced its holdings of the Ecclesiastical estates and possessions of the Roman Catholic Church and the "Holy Roman Empire". Thus stating, as this article does, that the "Holy Roman Empire" ended in 1806 seems to be a lie.

Disclaimer: 2023 AD, Gregorian calendar, is not the exact conclusion.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. -Biblical quote from BlueLetterBible.org

2601:5CC:8200:8DB0:68B0:3824:A62C:3A9B (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Venus aka Bryce

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brian5740.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Maximilian I and Charles V and Friedrich II

 * I would not mind adding both, if this is about notability in a general sense.
 * The thing is: Charles V was the peak of the “Habsburg Empire” and should be the notable ruler for it, because it took different great people and families to build it (among them, Isabella and Ferdinand of Castile, Philip the Good of Burgundy etc). Maximilian I however was the founder of the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” – the nature of the Empire changed during his time. The list shown in the infobox should reflect a timeline that actually represents the development of the Empire, and not a popularity contest – as criteria for historical characters and events, regarding the Wikipedia, are based more on scholarly sources. By popular opinion (many people don't even really care if she carried the title or not, she was the de facto ruler), Maria Theresa might have a claim here too. If I teach children about history of European cultural exchanges, I will also likely talk about Charles V first.
 * Modern authors write book like “Emperors from Charlemagne to Maximilian I” (or “from Maximilian to…”), not “Emperors from Charlemage to Charles V”, for this exact reason. Maximilian was the end of an age and the beginning of another age, and the wiki should reflect that.


 * I myself think that modern historiography is too harsh towards Charles V as a ruler, but the thing is that, as Holy Roman Emperor (or, some would say, as German Emperor), he was just not a founding figure or have a lasting effect on the polity the same way his grandfather was. He was absent in the Empire, especially in the German parts, a lot of time, and he also did not trust his brother fully, thus in many cases he was the passive actor in events.
 * Brady Jr (who studies both), summarized by Marc Forster:
 * I myself think that modern historiography is too harsh towards Charles V as a ruler, but the thing is that, as Holy Roman Emperor (or, some would say, as German Emperor), he was just not a founding figure or have a lasting effect on the polity the same way his grandfather was. He was absent in the Empire, especially in the German parts, a lot of time, and he also did not trust his brother fully, thus in many cases he was the passive actor in events.
 * Brady Jr (who studies both), summarized by Marc Forster:

The emperors, particularly Maximilian I and Charles V, are star actors in this drama. Brady has a particular affection for Maximilian: "He would attempt to refashion the Imperial office from a feudal lordship into a modern--one might say 'Renaissance' monarchy ... Maximilian aimed to rebuild German power in the image of the great emperors of the past" (p. 108). Maximilian comes across on the one hand as a wise ruler, intent on reorganizing the Austrian state along more efficient and effective lines. On the other hand, Brady calls him "the ablest royal warlord of his generation" (p. 110), whose military ambitions created a never-ending need for money. "Although he understood quite well the ancient Roman commonplace, 'money is the sinews of war' ... Maximilian remained nonetheless perfectly heedless, even reckless, about how it was obtained in order to serve his quest for fame and glory" (p. 112). By the early 1500s, Maximilian had made himself the "true lord of the Empire" (p. 120), yet in the decade before his death in 1519 wars in Italy and Hungary once again drove him to bankruptcy and defeat. Brady argues that Maximilian was "the first Holy Roman emperor in 250 years who ruled as well as reigned," but at the same time, "everything about Maximilian bears the feel of the makeshift and ad hoc" (p. 128). In the end, the emperor was a man of his times and certainly not a proto-national or proto-absolutist ruler. Yet, he also created most of the institutions and practices that came to characterize the Holy Roman Empire throughout the early modern period, a "state" that mixed "western" centralizing characteristics with the "loosely integrated, elective politics of East Central Europe" (p. 129). Brady's deep knowledge of Maximilian's life and times leads him to admire the emperor's hard work and determination and, perhaps, to regret that Maximilian's state-building project foundered on the shoals of military expenses and religious conflict. For Brady, Charles V is a less sympathetic, but also a more tragic figure: "Charles' reign opened in that bright sunlight [of the conquest of Mexico and the piles of gold delivered to the docks at Antwerp]; it would end thirty-nine years later in a grim mood of defeat, his grand personal empire in tatters, his Holy Roman Empire in a state of precarious peace, his beloved Church wallowing in one of the deepest crises in its long history" (p. 207). Brady thus presents Charles as a victim of the divisions created by the Reformation, at least in his role as German emperor. Victorious in war against the Protestants in 1547, the emperor could neither consolidate his rule nor impose Catholicism in the empire. By the mid-sixteenth century, the imperial estates were strong enough to survive military defeat and prevent any imperial centralization. The age of princes had come.
 * Although, as a person, Charles was actually the more sympathetic one imho.
 * Not to mention, as for being famous, it should depend on where and to whom. Charles V is easily the more notable man in Spain (and likely in the English speaking world), which had never been a part of the Empire. But Germany, at least the majortity of it, always was.
 * Maximilian Krüger for example calls Maximilian the most known Habsburg (in German context). I myself think that the average German person on the street today might likely hear about Charles V first, but the cumulative effect through the centuries means that the body of research and cultural materials about Maximilian is larger, and in the context of modern research, his star is rising again. Max is big for the people in the ivory tower, In Austrian context on the other hand, Maximilian is definitely the more honoured leader both by the intelligentsia and the population.Deamonpen (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To think about it, Frederick II should also be considered for notable leaders. Benchmark ruler for the HRE (although not totally in the positive way for the German part of the Empire), as reflected by this article too. Huge figure on a wider level.
 * "last great medieval emperor" according to Kleinhenz.
 * "most brilliant of the Hohenstaufen" according to Spielvogel.
 * Barbarossa is also remarkable, but will be controversial (his modern reputation in scholarly circles seems to decrease; part of this seems to be related to the overexploitation of his reputation in previous eras, especially by the Nazis). Deamonpen (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Extremely bizarre lede
The Holy Roman Empire (Sacrum Imperium Romanum; Heiliges Römisches Reich) was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western, Central and Southern Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars.

this is a very bizarre article, starting with the preference for a Latin term over a German term, when the Latin term was not even used until the 13th century. Then there is the idea appearing in the first line of the lede that the HRE was multi ethnic, which is falsely cited (source does not use the word multi-ethnic at all). In what sense multi ethnic? What does that even mean? What ethnicities were there, or even existed in that time period? None of this terminology is cited, and none of it is reflected in any other language article to suggest that this is what the secondary sources are saying now. So, all in all, very strange Asdf12345sixseveneight (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * When do you think the German term was first used? I am not a fan of "multi-ethnic complex", but neither am I a fan of your rewording, which does not describe what the Empire was. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Multi ethnic means Bavarians, Saxons, Swabians, Thuringians, and so on. So called "Germans" started to form only after Bismark created the Second Reich. And, keeping in mind that even modern Germans do not completely understand each other's language, it is quite correct to expect that Latin was a lingua franka during medieval times in the Holy Roman Empire (I mean the educated part of its population).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also known as
The first section under name says: "In the modern period, the Empire was often informally called the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) or Roman-German Empire (Römisch-Deutsches Reich)." Could we add this to the lead sentence, to bring it in line with other articles where we refer to them by their modern names Elias (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement on the section on the Hohenstaufen dynasty that Prussia was never part of the HRE
Could this perhaps be amended to state that although the kingdom of Prussia was never fully part of the HRE, its western territories in Brandenburg were? As it stands it gives the impression that Prussia was never in the slightest integrated with the HRE when the reality is more complex. 77.98.220.253 (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the remark! I think the problem derives from the ducal state of Prussia and the later kingdom having the same name. The kingdom included parts of the HRE like Brandenburg (where the actual centre of the kingdom lay) but the duchy did not. Therefore I've changed it to "Duchy of Prussia" as the more precise link target. Palastwache (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Transmission of imperial status?
Shouldn't the fact that the Byzantine Emperor conveyed Emperorship to Charlemagne be in here? It leaves the impression that the HRE was the result of an intellectual process, or a conception of a government, or a recreation of a historic government, when it seems the reality was just that the Pope wanted Charlemagne to take final responsibility for the Papal States against the Byzantines, no? The HRE wasn't just a construction. This article should relate that the Byzantine Emperor conveyed imperial-level sovereignty to Charlemagne, like it says in Charlemagne's article.73.170.138.18 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't really know much about the start of the HRE, & Charlemagne covers a number of rather divergent thoughts by different historians. But I can't see anything saying Constantinople (ruled at the time by the Empress Irene) "conveyed" anything. It seems highly unlikely they knew about the coronation before the event. The Pope may have thought of the HRE as a replacement for the BE, or not, but it seems Charlemagne wasn't much interested in moving beyond Italy, unless by marrying Irene. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of map showing the HRE in 1600
I've recently removed this map, purporting to show the extent of the Holy Roman Empire in 1600, from the article, for two main reasons: Vlaemink (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The map unequivocally includes the Dutch Republic and Spanish Netherlands (the modern day Netherlands and Belgium) as part of the Holy Roman Empire at this point in time, which incorrectly portrays both their de jure and de facto position: The Seventeen Provinces were reorganized into one indivisible territory under the provisions of the Burgundian treaty of 1548 and the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549. Following these edicts, the Low Countries were effectively removed from the legal framework of the Holy Roman Empire and created an entity separate of both France and the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the Crown of Spain. The Dutch Revolt (1566) and establishment of the Dutch Republic (1588) further accentuate this separateness. The notion, that the Netherlands did not formally leave the Holy Roman Empire until the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648; is a legal fiction of a late 19th century German historiographical origin (often combined with Swiss independence) as part of a broader narrative on the supposed fragmentation of Germany/HRE following the Thirty Years War: neither the Peace of Münster or the Treaty of Osnabrück has any reference on Dutch independence. Any map showing the HRE in 1600, even those in favor of the later narrative, must show the complete de jure and the actual de facto situation as well.
 * 2) The year 1600 is largely meaningless within the broader history of the Holy Roman Empire. Nothing pivotal happened in 1600, no loss or acquisition of land, no crowing, no imperial reforms, etc. In an article with some already heavy map-use, this particular year bears little significance.


 * Robert Feenstra dealt with this question in a two-part article in 1952: "À quelle époque les Provinces-Unies sont-elles devenues independantes en droit à l'égard du Saint-Empire?" The separation of the Netherlands from the Empire was certainly a process. He attaches special significance to the States-General's letters of 1605 and 1608 in declaring a republic separate from the Empire. Certainly before 1648, but after 1600. He does not make much of 1579 or 1588. Srnec (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the article, but if he describes it as a process I would concur. The problem with the map was however, that it did not show (c.q. completely ignored) this process and the political, geopolitical and cultural realities in 1600. It's difficult to make an apt comparison, but, to me, this is like showing a map of the French Empire in 1812 with the caption "France during the 19th century". Technically correct, practically ridiculous. Vlaemink (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Staufers' dynastic empire
Thanks, User:Srnec, for the suggestion. I'm also thinking about expanding the section with more information about the great dynasties of the Empire's earlier days. The distinction is that the Ottonen, the Salier and the Staufer (Henry VI with Sicily too) tried to integrate their newly conquered or acquired lands into the Empire. Sigismund might have had some ideas about integrating Hungary, considering the imperial palace he built there seems to have been intended to become an imperial political center as well, but the signals were not as clear. The Habsburgs on the other hand clearly distinguished between their dynastic empire and the HRR, although at the same time they fostered flexible connections and mutual dependability.

Another matter is that recently, researchers seem to differentiate between the Erbreichsplan (imperial succession project) and the plan for the integration of Sicily in the Empire (records show that Henry VI focused on persuading the Pope to recognize his son as King of Sicily without paying fealty/homage to the Pope for that Kingdom; the succession in the Empire seems to have been considered a matter between the emperor and his princes only). That Erbreichsplan page thus needs some rewriting as well (it also downplays the ability of Henry VI, perhaps the most powerful and politically successful Hohenstaufen emperor, in imposing his design: the Erbreichsplan was basically accepted but Henry VI did not live long enough to stabilize the situation). Basically, I intend to do that myself once I have time for a Cultural depictions article for Henry VI, but it will probably take quite a while. I also do not have as much access to sources on him as those concerning other emperors.

Perhaps there should be some expansion (in this article) regarding vassal countries and rulers in general as well.

Any help/contribution from other editors will be welcomed. I hope that you guys pay attention to the aforementioned problems. -Deamonpen (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe the link I added doesn't belong there. I only wanted to highlight the earlier period when the emperors held major dynastic lands outside the empire. I think the Staufer set the template for emperors ruling major territories outside the empire. As you said, when the Ottonians and Salians inherited Italy and Burgundy, they were integrated into the Empire. While we're on the subject of articles we perhaps might some day write maybe, I have long had in mind an article on the relationship between the Empire and southern Italy from Charlemagne down to the end of the Staufer. Srnec (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Anthem not true
The melody is not right. 188.2.181.82 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know, and what is the "correct" melody. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
The chain is very broken in the image on the page, but when you examine the source image, the chain of the Order of The Golden Fleece is perfectly fine. Also, the sinister crown on the dexter side of said crown one of the gems is the wrong color.

I am not the original creator of this CoA, these are merely screen-captures of missing details. I call on the original creators of this work or someone else more skilled than I to fix these issues.

Thanks, PearBullet PearBullet (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this actually the "coat of arms of the Holy Roman Empire"? It incorporates the arms of Hungary and the file calls it the CoA of a specific set of emperors, which is a different thing, since they also held many territories outside the empire. Even if it is, it seems only to have been used for 16 years out of a thousand which suggests that its inclusion in the infobox gives it a disproportionate prominence... Furius (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * agreed that the infobox gives it disproportionate prominence. I do not have the power to change that as I know near nothing about the HRE, I just wanted to bring the flaws in Joseph II's CoA to somebody's attention so that it could be fixed. somebody more knowledgeable than I on the HRE should change the CoA.  PearBullet (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we please add map that isn’t moving
Can we please add a map that isn’t moving? You don’t have to remove the moving one but like can. You guys make a map that is still and isn’t moving. AJDSTL (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Why? If the graphic bothers you, freeze it at some point.  How many maps do you want?  Which years do you consider notable? 104.169.37.99 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox map
Gabriel Ziegler why 1789 in particular? Why not year 1000 for example, which is close to when HRE started (and when it was actually an empire and controlled Rome)? Another landmark year for HRE was 1648, which was the end of the 30 Years War (the war which in reality ended the empire, with HRE only existing after that as a tradition). 1789 has no significance to HRE, in fact it was a time when the "empire" and was the joke of Europe with Voltaire saying: "This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." However, I'm well aware of the obsession by some German history enthusiasts to constantly highlight the German domination of Eastern Europe, and that is the only reason why 1789 would make sense (as 1789 has no significance to HRE). However, becasue HRE shifted so much to the south, west and then finally east, I think the longstanding infobox map is the best. E-960 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem fair. 1789 is a perfectly logical year, since it represents the state of the Empire on the eve of the revolutionary wars that brought it to an end. The animated gif seems a little bit better than a static map, because it allows viewers to see how the empire evolved. But if there are errors in it, it can't stand - Gabriel Ziegler, could you identify what those errors are, specifically? In the 1789 map, it is perhaps a little difficult to see much of the detail (always a problem with maps of the HRE!). Furius (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, in 1789 HRE was no empire (most maps of Europe from that time don't even show HRE as it fell by the wayside), and a new order with Austria and Prussia was in place. Also, correlating 1789 and the French Revolution to HRE is a stretch (it lasted for another 17 years). Also, remember that the longstanding map can always be fixed if there is some minor discrepancy that needs adjusting. --E-960 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Using 1789 as a "snapshot" date is pretty common - even the animated map that you're in favour of uses 1789 as one of its dates! Yes, of course, if the map has errors it could be restored to the article once those errors were fixed. But so far, I'm unclear whether it does have any. Furius (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sardinia was never controlled by HRE (Incorrect). HRE loss most of Italy in 1648 (Incorrect). And after the Treaty of Lunéville, the maps shows: Grossherzogtumberg, great part of Baden and Wuttemberg as a part of the concession land to France, which is factually incorrect. Gabriel Ziegler • 📄  • 📜
 * 1789 and near years were one of the most interesting eras for the HRE and Europe. There were events where the HRE and other European countries that had possesions or were part of the HRE participated such as Prussia or Austria.

One of the biggest (and not the single) example is the Industrial Revolution, and the implication of the HRE are minimal, but exists, for example: "Around 1800, part of the Ruhr Valley in Westphalia was called 'Miniature England' because of its similarities to the industrial areas of Britain.". Also implications of countries which claimed possesions in the HRE such as Austria, reacted at these changes of the Industrial Revolution, but the Industrial Revolution is not important. The French Revolution is the biggest event of HRE history, and the French Revolution started in 5 May of 1789 to 9 November of 1799, and the implications on HRE were many, changes of the borders such as Battle of Wiesloch of 1799 which implicated Austria/HRE and France. Other events could be examples such as: Battle of Stockach: French victory, Battle of Engen: French victory, Battle of Messkirch: French victory, Battle of Biberach: French victory, Battle of Erbach: French victory. Also, I'm not a German enthusiast, I mind about German history and that stuff but I'm not even German, I'm Venezuelan with German ancestry, and well others like Spanish or Galician people. But well, the biggest reason why 1789 is the War of the Second Coalition, If you do not know what is that, I suggest you to look at it. I won't explain. And well, the year 1000 is not relevant in HRE history, I can resume you what was the history of 1000's HRE History and near years: "Give me the sword and I'll kill this traitor !!!.", "I go to Rome for the coronation", "Give me that land and I pay you", "I hate Hungarians !". And very boring history which didn't make an impact in Europe history, or even HRE history. Thank you... E-069. Gabriel Ziegler • 📄  • 📜


 * I'm not convinced by your arguments, it appears that this is just your personal preference and you are throwing around a bunch of secondary facts to justify your choice. Using the same logic you can saturate every Wikipedia European polity article with maps from 1789... Sweden (in 1789), Spain (in 1789), Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in 1789), Russian Empire (in 1789)... why, well because it was the year of the French Revolution, which affected all of them down the road in one way or another. Also, all those other facts you shot-off are secondary, sorry most historians don't think about HRE and the Industrial Revolution. In the end, you are failing to see the big picture, in 1789 HRE was nothing more than a tradition and an after thought (Napoleon did not fight the HRE, he fought Prussia, Austria, etc.), a new political reality was formed well before that. So, instead of showing HRE in the year 1000 under the Ottonian dynasty when HRE was actually an empire and actually controlled Rome, and was in its height, you want to use a map in which HRE was an after though. In any case, I still think the dynamic map is best because HRE borders changed so much over time moving around south, west and east. So, I would recommend fixing the discrepancies on that map instead of removing it. --E-960 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends on the Empire or Country you're selecting for a map, I have made maps about Sweden, Spain and PLC, and I mean Imperial maps, for Russia I got some plans but Meh. So, for example, on the map of Sweden, the logic is, if you'll do a colonial map, you should do the map of the entity at its peakest. And well, one of the most affected entities was the HRE, and resulted in its disintegration!!! Will you tell me 1789 is an irrelevant year for the HRE? Also, talking about the map you show. Do you think every single spot in Germany had a constitution, king, army and all that stuff, It was all led by the HRE, which is a political entity, not an empire. Mention that the map is presumed to be of 1789, and the desintegration of HRE was in 1806. Talking about Napoleon attacked who or if he attacked my cat, Do you think Bavaria, Burnswick, Hanover, Wurttemberg and many members of the HRE who participated in the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon didn't attacked them? Also, if the HRE controlled rome or was an empire is clearly irrelevant by their own history, as i said, most of the history around 1000 is just: "Create this temple !", "I created the largest church, Speyer Cathedral!", "Damn ! The Hungarians are mad with us!". And boring things which are not Notable. My solution is to put both maps, just like the articles of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, which the Roman Empire article is a good article and the Byzantine Empire is a featured, I do not see the problem, but let me see if I can fix the Gif Map. Thank you E-960 Gabriel Ziegler • 📄  • 📜

I think the best option is to just fix the dynamic map (instead of having multiple maps in the infobox), and maybe change the color to green to make it easier on the eyes. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution is to put both maps. Gabriel Ziegler • 📄  • 📜  18:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The HRE always evolved, both territorially and in nature. It was already not as much as an empire during and after the Interregnum than before. And it was still somewhat holy and an empire in 1789, mainly in form of the ecclesiastical territories (usually loyal to and dependent on the Emperor) and the small territories mostly in the south with the Franconian and Swabian Imperial Circle that needed mutual cooperation and imperial protection. The dynamic map is maybe the best to show the evolution and not well-defined borders of the HRE. Errors in the map can be corrected. Currently disputed is the inclusion of Sardinia and the exclusion of Imperial Italy after 1648. Sardinia seems to be a clear case and is easy to fix. Imperial Italy is complicated, it was still a fiefdom to the Emperor and partly reigned by the Habsburgs but not integrated in most imperial institutions and most maps do not include it (one major exception is Peter Wilson in "Heart of Europe"). The main reason I see for 1789 is that it was the last "stable version" of its territory before the revolutionary expansion of France and the mediatisation/secularisation kicked in. It was the HRE prior to its end, not in its end (like 1801 or 1806 would be). Palastwache (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Palastwache, when you say "and it was still somewhat holy and an empire in 1789" that's just your opinion, after all Voltaire said: "This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Also, you say that HRE "[was] already not as much as an empire during and after the Interregnum". So, if HRE started in 962 when Otto was crowned emperor by Pope John XII, you are arguing that even during the Ottonian dynasty it was not an empire. I find your logic faulty on all statements. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I never argued "that even during the Ottonian dynasty it was not an empire". Neither did I mention the Ottonians nor did I say "not an empire" (Maybe my English was imprecise - when I wrote "not as much as", I meant "less"). I only mentioned the weakening of central authority during the Interregnum (starting around 1250). Authority which later Emperors like Maximilian I partly (but not fully) regained (the article mentions it, that's not just my opinion). The parallel existence of working institutions like the Imperial Diet, Chamber Court, Aulic Council or Circles on one side, with strong, autonomous local rulers characterized the HRE for large parts of its existence until shortly before its dissolution. So 1789 is not untypical in this regard. But I actually agree with you that the HRE became more a shell of an empire when Austria and Prussia became great powers on their own and started to fight each other. So, I prefer the (maybe aesthetically improved) dynamic map for the infobox. In this regard, we definitely agree and that's more important than our friendly clash about the nature of the HRE. Palastwache (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Latest comment: 4 months ago 5.197.227.247 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Succsessors?
The infobox mentions the Confederation of the Rhine to be one of the successors to the HRE, but the Confederation was more like a superstate like the EU. And the infobox doesn't mention the countless smaller states within the HRE Crainsaw (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's clearly impractical to list the hundreds of small states. I'm not sure I see how the Confederation as a superstate like the EU is appreciably different from the late-period HRE. Furius (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Habsburg monarchy has an RFC
Habsburg monarchy has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. User23242343 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Map
A map is being fought over...again. This revision changed the infobox map due to what would appear to be a factual inaccuracy, at least according to the old image's file. The user who made the change, @62.7.235.211, eventually added this "(c. 1200- c. 1250)" to the caption. These changes remained virtually unchallenged until the map was disputed over again with this revision. @151.37.37.64 sought to keep it, writing "problem date: “1200–1250”; source?" for their edit description. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This archived discussion seems to discuss this. The proposed German map was actually used for the golden map by Ernio, and they even say as such. Both maps are ultimately derived from, per the description: 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.
 * Therefore, the source that @151.37.37.64 wants is in the file description of the file they wish to use. The chief reason I saw for not using the map in German is because of the language difference, which would arguably not be the best fit for the English Wikipedia. I would vote against the German map for not just that, however, as the color clarity on Ernio's map is much better. Is there any other opposition? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * changes require sources; wikipedia is not source for wikipedia. I have tried in every way to make you understand that there are some problems between the map and the description of the map based on the sources cited.--151.19.24.157 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see:
 * The multi-coloured map File:Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg should not be the infobox map, although it is cited, because it is (a) not the correct style for an infobox map and (b) already appears in the article Holy_Roman_Empire.
 * The golden map (File:Holy Roman Empire at its territorial apex (per consensus).svg) is clearly the same as the aforementioned multi-coloured map and therefore is fine.
 * The green map (File:Holy Roman Empire 1000CE.svg) claims to depict an earlier stage in the history of the HRE, is also cited, and would also be fine (the dispute tag has been placed on it without any discussion or explanation and can therefore be ignored).
 * The IP address' claim that "Wikipedia is not source for wikipedia" seems to be a red herring. Furius (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat that there is a problem between the map and the description of the infobox map (The Holy Roman Empire at its greatest territorial extent (c. 1200–1250)), ok? It's not hard to understand.
 * The original map (Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg) shows the territories of the Holy Roman Empire in its maximum expansion with the Hohenstaufen dynasty.


 * The graphic map produced by the infobox appears different as it includes only some territories according to a personal interpretation of some users (personal points of view, POV). So the original source is different.


 * The sources cited on the page confirm the original map and not the personal interpretation of some users.


 * Then I restored the original map of the source associated with the description in the infobox. All wikipedia respects users' POVs but the contents need sources.


 * Wikipedia is made up of content based on sources.


 * The personal interpretations (Pov) of the various users are not a source for wikipedia. okay? It's not hard to understand.


 * changes require sources; wikipedia is not source for wikipedia and Wikipedia is not a blog.--151.35.74.210 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The maps are virtually identical as far as content is concerned. Both use Plate 26/27 of Professor G. Droysens Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas, published by R. Andrée, 1886 as a source, which is what you appear to be looking for. Thank you. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeat: changes require sources; wikipedia is not source for wikipedia. I have tried in every way to make you understand that there are some problems between the map and the description of the map based on the sources cited. Wikipedia is not a blog; The reasons are very precise. It's not hard to understand.--151.35.42.71 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is Pomeralia and East Prussia included in the HRE's borders? It is quite well-known that a large portion of Austria (and a fairly substantial portion of Prussia) were outside the HRE's borders. The map has no citation either. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Name in lead and infobox
despite the fact that some important official decrees in the 16th century (like the 1555 Augsburg interim) used the title "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation", it is controversial if this became ever the official title of the Empire. To cite Peter Wilson in "Heart of Europe" (2016), p. 255: "Much has been made of the addition of the words ‘of the German Nation’ to the title ‘Holy Roman Empire’. Appearing in 1474, this combination was used more frequently after 1512 without becoming the Empire’s official title – despite numerous later claims to the contrary. Protestants were far more likely than Catholics to add ‘of the German Nation’ when discussing the Empire, but even their use was inconsistent. Only one in nine official documents issued after 1560 included any reference to Germany, usually referring simply to ‘the Empire’."

If most official documents after 1560 did not use the addition "of the German Nation" you cannot argue that it "stayed that till its dissolution" The quote that you added also simply says "reflected in the official name used in the 16th century". So we both agree that it was used in official documents, predominantly in the 16th century. But I doubt one can argue that it served as a replacement until the end of the Empire in 1806.

Lead and infobox of the article have also to reflect the body of the article where it is mentioned that "By the end of the 18th century, the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" fell out of official use. Contradicting the traditional view concerning that designation, Hermann Weisert has argued in a study on imperial titulature that, despite the claims of many textbooks, the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" never had an official status and points out that documents were thirty times as likely to omit the national suffix as include it."--Palastwache (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Palastwache. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a decree issued adding the suffix? Was a decree ever issued removing the suffix? Most, probably all Indian official documents never refer to "Republic of India", but it still called the official name, being probably only used in the passport. All official names are like that. Most official documents never refer to it. If you'd like, we could add the both names but without mentioning the timespan (except for "after 1512" in case of the second name). PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The source clearly mentions it to be the official name of the entity. HRE is nothing but an anachronism and WP:COMMONNAME of this entity. Let's also cite Jasper Cornelis van Putten from Networked Nation: Mapping German Cities in Sebastian Münster’s 'Cosmographia' which in turn cites Joachim Whaley from Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia 1499-1648, vol. 1 of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 17:"While subsequent emperors expanded its territory, the German lands therefore remained the empire's heartland. This was formally acknowledged in 1512 when the empire changed its official name to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation). ³³" These sources must have made it clear that Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was adopted as the official name of the entity in 1512. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is "also known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after 1512" in the first line insufficient? Srnec (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because it doesn't reflects its official status, treating it like a sort of nickname. That's why I support 's idea. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your support @Est. 2021
 * @Srnec, I have the same reason as editor Est. 2021 has stated above. It doesn't reflect it's official status. The infobox needs to state it's full official name. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The current text of the article suggest that the name was changed by decree - it was not. That's not what the given source (footnote 43: Wilson, 1999 - the same Wilson I cited above) and other literature say (e. g. an extensive study from 1910 at Wikisource, unfortunately in German). "Of the German Nation" was an addendum first used in the 15th century that established itself after it was prominently used in the "Reichsabschied" that ended the Imperial Diet of 1512 and documented its decisions.
 * The Abschied/Recess of 1512 did not declare "this is the new name", it just used it as a long form. This name form seemed quite popular in the early 16th century when the Habsburgs tried to strengthen the German core of the Empire (see "Imperial Reform") but fell already out of use at the end of the century. Later on, it was sometimes used by scholars discussing the nature of the Empire. Of which Samuel Pufendorf in 1667 and Johann Jacob Moser in 1766 sayed that it would be common in Germany to call the Empire "of the German nation" more like a colloquialism than an official title. Imperial institutions did almost never use the title "of the German Nation" since the second half of the 16th century. Which in my opinion does not qualify the title to be named as "the official title since 1512" in infobox and lead.
 * The first paragraph of the article could still be complemented that "in the 16th century, it was also officially called the HRE of the German Nation". But in my opinion, it's unprecise and oversimplified to write "since 1512", for the reasons listed above.--Palastwache (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Citing Brian A. Pavlac and Elizabeth S. Lott in The Holy Roman Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia:"Over time, imperial control was lost over many of these areas, reflected in the official name used in the 16th century: the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. While it is sometimes inaccurate or anachronistic to use the term "Holy Roman Empire" for the succession of political constructs from 800 to 1806, it is certainly more convenient. The same inaccuracy and anachronism likewise applies to the titles of the rulers"
 * Let's also cite Bodie A. Ashton from The Kingdom of Württemberg and the Making of Germany:"It offered a loose, overarching political framework, some form of directed foreign policy, variable forms of taxation and a centrally mandated federal legal system that was (sometimes) adhered to by the constituent states. Its official name - the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - belied the fact that it was not a nation in any recognized sense of the word. Instead, the Empire was divided into 'districts' (Kreise), a ponderous regional system in which various neighbouring autonomous provinces were banded under a local administration, which was then answerable to the Empire as a whole."
 * Thanks for the fruitful discussion. But unfortunately I must still insist that this is highly interpretative. The fact is that the recess ("Reichsabschied") that formally ended the Reichstag of 1512 was the first official document of an Imperial institution to use the name form "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". You see the small difference that it was not declared as the name but only used as a name form? (Van Putten is a bit unprecise in citing Whaley, who writes "in 1474 the Reich was first referred to in a document as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and this nomenclature was formally established in 1512." - Is the establishment of a nomenclature the same as the establishment of an official title or even the official title that replaced all others? You may assess it so but this might be subject to interpretation.)
 * Some historians (like Pavlac & Lott, or Ashton whose book is about the 19th century Württemberg and therefore only marginally relevant to this topic) interpret it as a new official title, others like Peter Wilson, Karl Zeumer or Hermann Weisert questions it (Wilson explicitly states "without becoming the Empire’s official title", Weisert - to cite the article - "has argued in a study on imperial titulature that, despite the claims of many textbooks, the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" never had an official status and points out that documents were thirty times as likely to omit the national suffix as include it").
 * But even the sources who name it as an official title limit its function to the 16th century. Was it still the official title after it was abandoned by the Imperial institutions at the end of the same century? It would be a bit anachronistic to call the Empire of 1790 "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" if the name had fallen out of official use for 200 years. In case of anachronism - what Pavlac & Lott mean is that we refer to the political entities established in 800 and 962 as "Holy Roman Empire" despite they were still named "Regnum Francorum" (Francia or more precisely East Francia) back then, the name "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" (for Holy Roman Empire) was first documented in 1184 and the prevalent title since 1254. Again, this title was not decreed, it gradually evolved in political practice. Palastwache (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But some sources do cite as the official name, right? Official names can mean a variety of different things depending on the particular period. It didn't mean the same thing as it means now. To prevent anachronism, we could do it without citing the timespan of the names. The lead could stay as it is. I just want the name "Holy Roman Empire of teg German Nation" to be in the infobox too, as many sources cite it to be the Reich's official name, nothing else. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally see no problem in listing it as an alternative name in the infobox (without a too specific date). But I'm not sure if this is the common practice. Palastwache (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a common practice if the entity had multiple names. Such as Nazi Germany and First French Empire. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see the benefit to adding it to the infobox. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! Infoboxes should be kept brutally short, and their hulls regularly scraped for barnacles. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello editor @Johnbod, thanks for participating in this discussion. I agree that infoboxes should be kept short but not by removing crucial information such as the official name itself. If it was something else like the above thirty currencies or the member states, it would've been fine to remove them but not the official name. I think the HRE infobox isn't that long that it could cause problems. The official name is pretty important. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor @Johnbod, can you please consider responding? PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"Empire of the germans" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empire_of_the_germans&redirect=no Empire of the germans] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

References width
How did you come up with 22em as the width for the references? —GoldRingChip 02:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * it reduces empty white space by generating 3 columns on my screen. the references then compact to 8 pages rather than 9. how many columns does it render on yours, 4? you have to get the balance of not having too few columns with lots of white space, or having too many columns that are too narrow, scrunched. there's hopefully a width, between 22 and 30 that works for both of our screens, most screens. i've moved it up to 27em, Tom B (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Template:Reflist: "30em: Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection....20em: Where Shortened footnotes are used". Both is true here and in a lot of developed articles, so it should be between 20em and 30em, Tom B (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)