The Holy Roman Empire

Pretorian

Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2007 at 05:14

I'd like to quote Friedrich Heer's extensive work "The Holy Roman Empire":

"Charles the Great, regarded by all emperors of the Holy Roman Empire as their illustrious forebear, took the title not of "Roman Emperor" but of "Emperor ruling the Roman Empire"."

He further states: "We have Einhart's word for it that the "Roman Emperors" would have been greatly displeased by the establishment of a second imperial office through Charles' coronation on Christmas day 800. The Roman Emperors in question were purple-born emperors, enthroned in the "second Rome", the Golden City on the Golden Horn, in other words, Constantinople."

So even Einhard, Charlemagne's own biographer, did not consider Charlemagne nor his empire as being "the Holy Roman Empire".

"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2007 at 05:28

Originally posted by duchess

I see , but when u look at a map which shows the holy roman empire it has in its vicinity territories such as the kingdom of Germany, the dukes of Saxony and Bavaria and so on , where they answerable to the emperor?
if not , then what was the power invested into the title of holy roman emperor ( seems like a big scary title lol )

The powers of the Emperor were exercised in a broad range of areas, but restricted everywhere:

executive:: he enforced the laws and rulings of the empire, although most of this was delegated to the Reichskreise; he appointed imperial officers;
legislative:: he could propose, approve and promulgate laws; in particular, he had the right to withhold approval;; but he could not levy taxes without approval
judiciary:: he was the ultimate judge in Germany, although he could only exercise this power through legally appointed courts, and had no right to intervene in the Reichskammergericht, but had in certain cases the final word in the Reichshofrat;; he had the right of pardon, as well as the right to confer exemptions and privileges (i.e., exceptions to the application of imperial laws);
international:: he alone represented the Empire abroad, although his ability to make war, peace and alliances was very limited;
feudal:: he was overlord of all imperial fiefs.

Note that 'imperial fiefs' does not refer to the whole empire, but a few areas where there was a feudal relationship.

In practice of course (just as in any other domain) the Emperor's actual powers varied greatly with the Emperor.

Check the link I gave earlier for more details: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm

as well I'm interested to know who were the official electors of the holy roman emperor.

They varied from time to time. When the electorate was officially established in the early 13th century there were three spiritual or clerical electors: the bishops of Mainz, Trier and Cologne; and four temporal or lay electors: the king of Bohemia, the Count Palatine, the elector of Saxony, and the margrave of Brandenburg.

this is an off topic question but since Byzantium was briefly mentioned here , was Byzantium feudal?

As far as I'm aware, Byzantium always claimed at least the trappings and structure of Rome, so it wasn't feudal. It's possible that some feudal relationships arose outside the formal organisation, as with the HRE.

Originally posted by Joinville

We are talking about "The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation" founded by Emperor Otto in 962 (or thereabouts). We all agree on that?

It doesn't look as though we do.

Charlemagnes empire didn't meet these specific criteria

Well, it certainly doesn't if you define it as founded in 962 or thereabouts.

because Otto's creation was in fact an attempt to resurect the empire which ended up meaning the abandonment of the claims on the throne of France.

But on the other hand, a major reason for France to hang on to Alsace (and some other bits) was to make the King of France eligible to be Emperor. The Emperor didn't have to be German, just own some Imperial territory.

The same name is used generally, but it is wrong to say no distinction is made.

With regard to the correct name, it should presumably be either German or Latin. 'Sacrum Romanum Imperium' was first used officially as the title of the empire in 1254, and 'Heiliges R�misches Reich' in 1340, though there is apparently a reference in a letter of 1302 to 'des heiligen Romischen riches' (sic).

Referring to the 'Holy Roman Empire' at any earlier date is therefore strictly unjustified, whatever language you are using.

Charlemagne took the title Imperator Augustus Romanum gubernans Imperium or serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus, magnus pacificus Imperator Romanorum gubernans Imperium so he was at least claiming to be Roman Emperor. (Byzantium confirmed his claim, for the West, in 812.)

Otto called himself imperator augustus, imperator augustus Francorum, or imperator augustus Romanorum, so he also was claiming to be resurrecting the Roman Empire (and also claiming to rule the Franks) which sounds very like resurrecting the Carolingian empire. The theoretical position was that the Empire had been revived by Charles after a long interregnum, and revived again by Otto after a rather shorter one.

But it was a couple of hundred years more before the Emperor claimed the empire was 'Holy'.

So while France was part of Charlemagnes empire, it was outside the later Holy Roman Empire.

But still in Otto's, according to Otto.

That's the blue bit on this here map. All the bits to the east of it ended up as part of the Empire.

Edited by gcle2003 - 05-May-2007 at 05:31

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2007 at 05:41

You posted while I was writing

Originally posted by Melisende

I'd like to quote Friedrich Heer's extensive work "The Holy Roman Empire":

"Charles the Great, regarded by all emperors of the Holy Roman Empire as their illustrious forebear, took the title not of "Roman Emperor" but of "Emperor ruling the Roman Empire"."

Not strictly correct. I gave the Latin in my post, and there are two titles. The first is Imperator Augustus Romanum gubernans Imperium which is either 'Roman Emperor governing the Empire' or 'Emperor governing the Roman Empire' (depending on what Romanum attaches to. The second (the relevant bit) is Imperator Romanorum gubernans Imperium which is either 'Emperor of the Romans ruling the Empire' or 'Emperor ruling the empire of the Romans'.

I'm not sure however that any of the readings differs significantly from 'Roman Emperor'. Isn't the 'Emperor ruling the Empire of the Romans' the same thing as the 'Roman Emperor'?

So even Einhard, Charlemagne's own biographer, did not consider Charlemagne nor his empire as being "the Holy Roman Empire".

Einhard may have felt that, but in fact the Emperor in Byzantium eventually agreed in 812 to confirm Charlemagne's title as imperator Romanorum.

(Google on '812 Charlemagne title Byzantium' to get a few hundred confirmations.)

The important thing, insofar as any of this is important, is that nobody in Charlemagne's time nor in Otto's was talking about the 'Holy Roman Empire', just the 'Roman Empire'.

Edited by gcle2003 - 05-May-2007 at 05:53

Joinville

Consul

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 353

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2007 at 19:20

Originally posted by gcle2003

Can't recall the kings of France ever trying to make such a claim? Got some more info to add on this?

Iirc Alsace didn't end up French until the Peace of Westphalia, at which point the position as emperor was firmly entrenched with the Habsburgs. Otoh they picked up Provence in the 15th c., which was also imperial lands.

Still, when did the kings of France stake a claim on the imperial throne?

One must not insult the future.

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 06-May-2007 at 08:47

Originally posted by Joinville

Originally posted by gcle2003

Can't recall the kings of France ever trying to make such a claim? Got some more info to add on this?

You didn't 'make a claim' to the HRE, it wasn't that kind of empire. You got yourself nominated for election. To be eligible for election you had to own land in the Empire. One of the reasons for wanting Alsace (and, as I said, some other bits) was to ensure eligibility for election, not to claim the Empire.

Iirc Alsace didn't end up French until the Peace of Westphalia, at which point the position as emperor was firmly entrenched with the Habsburgs.

But it was never hereditary. Given the 'right' outcome to the 18th century wars and dynastic manouevring, that might have been changed. But if the King of France ever wanted to be Emperor (as the king of Spain had been) he needed imperial territory.

Kind of keeping an ace up your sleeve when you don't know how a hand is going to come out.

Otoh they picked up Provence in the 15th c., which was also imperial lands.

Luxembourg too in the 17th century for that matter. Same principle.

Still, when did the kings of France stake a claim on the imperial throne?

They didn't. But it wouldn't be 'making a claim' anyway, but putting up for election.

Incidentally, the HRE still claims to exist, and its titles are still recognised in the Almanach de Gotha ( http://almanachdegotha.org/_wsn/page5.html ). Oddly enough I knew (briefly) the father of the current holder of the Imperial title, Karl Friedrich von Saxe-Altenburg (as Charles VIII), in 1957 when he was acting as patron of Mrs Anna Anderson, the soi-disante Grand Duchess Anastasia.

Saxe-Altenburg's view of the history is given in the Brief History of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the Creation, Illegal Suspension and Formal Resumption at http://imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com/index.html

with a list of the current holders of Imperial dignities in what is now France at http://imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com/_wsn/page4.html

Penelope

Chieftain

Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042

Quote

Posted: 07-May-2007 at 00:49

Keep in mind that Charlemagne's grandfather, Charles Martel, strengthened the Frankish Empire by consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, until his death. He made it easier for his grandson to be able to subdue the remainder of the empire's enemies.

So, if Charlemagne truely founded the "Holy Roman Empire", Charles Martel should also be given some credit.

Constantine XI View Drop Down

Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711

Quote

Posted: 07-May-2007 at 01:01

Originally posted by duchess

this is an off topic question but since Byzantium was briefly mentioned here , was Byzantium feudal?

To answer your off topic question briefly, it depended on the time period. For the period 330-1081, Byzantium was an absolute autocracy, supported by a large bureaucracy, a subordinate church and a carefully regulated system of court titles and ceremonies. She was one of the most un-feudal of states in the world from the 7th-9th centuries, but military success and expansion saw the rise of powerful landowners. Under Alexius I and the Komnenos dynasty, these landowners developed into a proper military elite who functioned in providing localised defence and administration. After 1204, proper Western feudalism truly took root as the Byzantines outright adopted much of the Western system and Byzantium by that stage may be considered a proper feudal European power.

Ironduke

Immortal Guard

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0

Quote

Posted: 07-May-2007 at 04:02

Originally posted by Gerenalissimus Sinclair

I am so confused that it is unbelievable. WHAT IS THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE? I have read that is was founded by Charlemagne who was french, but power went to the Spanish. I have read that it was a loose empire and contradicting reports say that it was a very strict empire. I don't even know what countries or land was involved.

COULD SOMEBODY HELP ME?

IIRC, the Pope crowned Charlemagne to gain his alliance against his enemies, viewing the Byzantine throne as vacant due to it being occupied by a female, the Empress Irene.

It was a purely political move on the Pope's part.

Admin of the World Affairs Board
Geopolitical, Military, & Defense Discussion
351,000 posts - 4,100 members

Melisende

Pretorian

Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157

Quote

Posted: 08-May-2007 at 04:38

Ironduke,

I think this was also in part to resurrect the Western Roman Empire - which was non-existant following the sack of Rome (476).

And - please someone more familiar with Roman Law, correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that as no woman was considered to be capable of holding the position of military leader - ie: commander in chief of the army. This position was typically held by men (insert: male Emperors), and as such, the Pope decided that Irene could not legally hold her position on the Imperial throne and thus declared it vacant. As such, by offering the (Western) Imperial throne to Charlemagne, the Pope was "eliminating" the Eastern Empire.

This is to be taken in the context of politics of the day 790 -810. I think it is a plausable theory. And thus binding the Emperor more closely to the fledgling papacy.

"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 08-May-2007 at 05:16

I don't think any woman could be 'Imperator' (or even 'Imperatrix') but I'm unaware of any reason she couldn't be 'Augustus' (or, of course, 'Augusta'), which was not a military title. 'Augustus' outranked 'imperator' and 'caesar'.

It's even more complicated because the position we tend to think of as 'Emperor' was in fact 'Princeps'. On the death of the first Augustus, Tiberius became Princeps, but refused the titles of Imperator and Augustus (I believe he was already Caesar). Then in 15AD, Germanicus, after his victories in Germany that led to his being granted a full triumph, was given the title 'imperator' even though Tiberius continued to rule.

I can't see any legal reason therefore why in Rome a woman could not be Augusta while someone male was Imperator (possibly more than one). Of course, legality in such matters didn't count for a great deal.

Which Latin title did Irene actually claim? (I gather she called herself 'basileus' in Greek, instead of using the feminine form 'basilissa').

(As the present Queen of England is also Duke, not Duchess, of Normandy.)

Melisende