Talk:Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 1

Untitled
WHy is it that Ladislas (that is how it is spelled in several English-language texts that I own -- I finally checked -- is listed by his family name, but not whether he was King or Duke or whatever? JHK It's often (and I think more properly - we need to choose) rendered as Ladislaus, as with Stanislaus, Boleslaus, Wenceslaus.

I'm more tickled that Maximilian became king but was elected emperor - original, that. Oddly, he seems to have been elected as king of the Romans, his father retaining the kingship of the Germans until hiis death. This may need checking, but I think it's a useful illustration of the lack of uniformity with which such titles were deployed.

I've taken out the bit about Maximilian "uniting all of the Habsburg lands ... after his victory against Louis XI of France". The struggle was in fact a draw, with France gaining the vital western half of Burgundy which had been such a lethal threat to the kingdom earlier in the century. Notice how there's no mention of the first phase of the Italian Wars, which didn't go that well for the Empire either. It's like watching a propaganda newsreel.

The bit about the Habsburgs winning is reminiscent of the "In Spring 1735, Austria finally cracked the French at the Battle of Bitonto" nonsense in War of the Polish Succession: the Austrians were in fact routed there (in 1734, of course, and by the Spanish - wrong year, wrong outcome, wrong enemy) and lost the domination of Italy won for the Empire two centuries earlier. It's funny how it's always the more "Germanic" side that won, isn't it - just as they fended off Polish encroachment so effectively in Prussia in 1454-66.

I've also taken out the "First Congress of Vienna" reference and replaced it with a rather more useful year. As far as I can establish, the term was only coined (very tentatively) in 1952, which hardly qualifies it as a recognised historical title. David Parker

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)