Tell me about the HRE. Were they the most powerful European state? How did they collapse?
lol. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a state. It was a loose association of smaller states, a confederation or a league or the like. It didn't really collapse because it was never a country to begin with.
>Tell me about the HRE. Were they the most powerful European state?
You can't talk about a "state" in that era.
I will assume you are talking about the strength of the Holy Roman Emperor.
Charlemagne, the Ottonians, some of the Salians and some of the Hohenstaufen, etc were likely the strongest monarchs in Europe, probably stronger than the Greek Emperors. Charles V was the most powerful monarch in Western Europe.
Some others, specially after Frederick II, were relatively weak.
The great grandfather of Charles V got his territories occupied by the King of Hungary, for example.
>How did they collapse?
Frederick II gave too much power and independence to some high nobles.
>Epic meme answer. I guess I was expecting too much by asking for a serious reply
What exactly is a "Meme" about the answer? No contemporary or scholarly definition of a state that I'm aware of would apply to the Holy Roman Empire. It had no monopoly on sanctioned force, no top-down institutional control, and its emperors were elected.
Therefore, it is not a state, and treating it as one is stupid. What's next?
>Was the Medici banking state the most powerful in Europe?
>How did they collapse?
>historical lifespan of an entity is one of decline when looking back
I never said that retard. I was just pointing out how you were ignoring any factors in the decline of a state beyond the final blow
>The HRE was actually more centralized than France in the beginning.
And I wouldn't consider "France" a state until it centralized. When you have Armangnac and Burgundian factions able to raise their own armies and completely ignore the shit out of Paris, you don't have a functioning state.
Later, France developed into statehood. The HRE never did.
Come on, show me either a contemporary definition of statehood, or a modern academic one that would qualify the HRE as a state.
>No contemporary or scholarly definition of a state that I'm aware of would apply to the Holy Roman Empire
I don't see a rebuttal. Can I take that to mean you've conceded that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't a state?
>I'm asking when it started to collapse or what caused it to collapse
They never managed to centralise properly because they were too big, and included too many nationalities to form nationalism like France or England.
It often got weakened by the constant conflicts with the pope, then with the reformation and finally the 30 year's war everything went down the shitter.
From time to time the emperor was the most powerful man in Western europe. Depended on the prince and the circumstances
By your logic the kingdom of France wasn't a state either since it was a 'loose collection of smaller states' that were administered by lower lords who often rebelled and where the king didn't have much say a lot of the time. The HRE was centralized, the emperor did have supreme control, at least in theory, just as the other medieval kingdoms did. So I think that unless you reject medieval kingdoms as states, you can't reject the HRE as a state
I guess the HRE was the most powerful political entity in Europe during its inception
After 1250 they had a long interregnum and general political instability until 1356, but they were never able to start a process of centralization of powers
The stayed relevant as one of the most prominent powers in Europe until Napoleon, but they started a slow and unstoppable decline since the thirty years war.
are you implying that people in the western roman empire and unified roman empire before 476 were all ethnically roman?
are you implying they all spoke latin?
both claims are false
you're a dirty barbarian
Capital in Constantinople. Didn't even hold Rome. Didn't speak Latin at all after Heraclius.adopted eastern cultural practices. Preferred to scheme and sabotage over fighting. No they were pretty much the opposite of the real romans
The HRE was a very complicated confederation of German, Italian, Flemish, Swiss, Czech, Dutch, Walloon, and even occasionally French microstates, of which no more than half a dozen countries at any given time were actual forces to be reckoned with. To travel from Berlin to the borders of France you would probably have to pass through dozens of countries.
The emperor (usually a German, and usually a Habsburg, with some exceptions) was elected by the electors, which were a mix of about seven ecclesiastical and secular minor states. These traditionally included the King of Bohemia, the Duke of Saxony, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the bishops of Trier and Mainz, and the Margrave of Brandenburg.
The HRE was definitely a force to be reckoned with but most often did not have their shit together. In virtually every war the empire as a whole participated in there was almost always at least two imperial countries fighting on the other side. The HRE was not a state nor very powerful for most of its history, and it would probably be more useful to look at the histories of the empire's major component countries than look at it as a whole.
Except for the whole "Monopoly on legitimate violence" part, or the institutional path of succession to his heirs.
>By your logic the kingdom of France wasn't a state either since it was a 'loose collection of smaller states' that were administered by lower lords who often rebelled and where the king didn't have much say a lot of the time.
I quite literally said that here.>>517142
France, at least modern France, became a state in the late 15th century, not before. However, even before that, you had a load more control than you ever did in the HRE. A French vassal, even one who didn't pay attention to the king, who died without issue had his estate revert to the crown. You never had that in the HRE, you had either alloidal title or a different feudal structure entirely; one that didn't lead to the Emperor.
>The HRE was centralized, the emperor did have supreme control,
No he didn't. If we're talking theory, the Imperial Diet was his superior, which elected emperors, as opposed to emperors declaring their own successors, and decided what the territorial boundaries of the Empire was at.
Admit it greasy hellene, we did Rome better than you could ever dream of.
>Capital in Constantinople.
Rome hadn't been the capital of the empire for fucking ages m80
if you're going to claim the byzantine empire isn't a continuation of the roman empire because the capital was different then Diocletian's empire wasn't the roman empire, or Constantine's or any of the emperors of the West after the split and after the capital was moved to Ravenna in 402
>Didn't speak Latin
and how many people in the unified empire - prior to what you would term the time the eastern roman empire stopped being roman - actually spoke latin?
>Heraclius.adopted eastern cultural practices.
so did plenty of emperors who were influenced by the eastern shahs and adopted the diadem
was alexander the great not macedonian/greek because he started going native after his conquests? absurd
>Preferred to scheme and sabotage over fighting.
because this hadn't been a trend since the early republic you, right?
yeah totally the opposite of the REAL romans
btw who were the real romans?
because legally every person within the bounds of the roman empire was a roman citizen since
This is only true for late periods. The HRE was not always like this.
The early Holy Roman Emperors had more of a say on which vassals and heirs could keep the lands than the French Kings. IIRC, one of the most powerful dukes in the XI century lost all his lands because he pissed off the Emperor. IIRC, it was the Duke of Lorraine.
i hate every last one of you steppe cockroaches but that armor gives my dick rigor mortis
>the Holy Roman Empire and the USA existed at the same time for almost a quarter of a century
I need a drink
jesus christ do you have any idea the impact the 30 years war had in its deterioration and decentralization? the holy roman empire internally collapsed in the 17th century. it was officially dissolved in the 19th century. stop posting retarded shit.
>The HRE is the failure
Nealy one millennium of official existence with most of that time entailing the relative cohesion of German and Austrian states isn't a failure, I'm sorry it molested you so badly you have to shitpost this hard about its history though.
Yeah, but don't act like the early HRE was some though shit
It lost to France alone despite being allied with England
It lost to the fucking Czechs
It was weak as shit
>A French vassal, even one who didn't pay attention to the king, who died without issue had his estate revert to the crown. You never had that in the HRE
Stop posting, retard.
The Bohemian Crown was passed down to Charles V for this very reason.
>It was weak as shit
Then why was it victorious in the Italian Wars?
At its first peak in the late 9th-early 10th centuries, and its second in the 16th century, the Holy Roman Empire, and particularly the territories of its ruling dynasties, were massively expanding throughout Europe through both political and martial force.
Past the 17th century?
Yep, weak and more divided than ever before.
From the 12th-15th centuries it was absolutely overshadowed by the French dynastically, culturally, and militarily.
But at its peaks it was one of the most powerful regions in Europe whether you like it or not, retard. Stop being such a biased freak.
>Then why was it victorious in the Italian Wars?
It was Spain that won the italian wars. The spanish king was simply also the emperor. But the country that always contributed the most to Charles V wars was Castille, not the HRE that Charles left to its brother.
Charlemagne, while not officially recognized as a >Holy>Roman>Emperor, is considered the spiritual progenitor of the >H>R>E. A father both France, Germany, and all in between, can be proud of.
"Tell me about the HRE (just the parts I want to hear and agree with)"
Can we stop to have these kinds of threads here? If you know so much about it to get frustrated at every minor thing you disagree with just don't start the thread. What did you expect, a compliment and a pat in the back?
Grow up. Circlejerking is bad enough on this site but at least it involves some sort of community discussion
In some cases it's considered a part of his dominions until he abdicated for his brother to officially rule those regions. At any rate,
>A French vassal, even one who didn't pay attention to the king, who died without issue had his estate revert to the crown. You never had that in the HRE
Happened, and officially with the Habsburgs, and Ferdinand specifically, being given the Bohemian crown.
>It was Spain that won the italian wars.
No, it was Spain that contributed to the Italian Wars, with soldiers of the Swabian circles contributing too. And Spain was the domain of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire won the Italian Wars, bub, with Spain as its ruler's domain.
The crown of Bohemia went along with the Crown of St Stephen of Hungary, and went to the Hapsburgs from the linking all the way back in the 15th century, with Elizabeth and Ladislaus.
It had nothing to do with the HRE. And Charles V never held the Bohemian crown; his brother Ferdinand did.
>Charles V's success are because Spain was powerful, not the HRE
You know jack shit and you should stop posting.
Charles V's successes are because his Austrian grandfather serving as the primary basis for his empire. If it wasn't for Maximilian I, Charles would not have had the Netherlands, nor Spain, nor any kind of basis for the Landsknecht and Tercio.
>It had nothing to do with the HRE.
The Habsburgs had everything to do with the HRE, and Bohemia was literally a part of the HRE with its own autonomy.
At any rate, with the lands the HRE entailed, the ruling dynasty in this case did inherit their vassals region.
>You never had that in the HRE
Is wrong, because it did happen to the HRE.
I, uh, I might have missed something obvious or an earlier post or something, but you don't seem to know anything about the Bohemian crown - Charles V could not have had the crown, he could not even be considered to "in some cases" possess simply because, well, he didn't have it, he wasn't king, period. The estates had not voted him king, which is how Bohemian kings were chosen and which is how Ferdinand got the crown. In fact, the crown would not be hereditary for precisely another 100 years.
>The Habsburgs had everything to do with the HRE, and Bohemia was literally a part of the HRE with its own autonomy.
The Hapsburgs role as (almost always) emperors of the HRE was institutionally seperate from their roles as Archdukes of Austria, Kings of Hungary, Kings in Spain, and a lot of their other titles.
Institutionally, they were separate.
>Is wrong, because it did happen to the HRE.
From a completely different line of feudal authority, not because they were Emperors you daft twit. Just because it happened in the HRE doesn't mean it happened because of the HRE. If the Hohenzollerns were the emperors in the reign of Charles V, the Hapsburgs would still have had their claims to Bohemia.
>Charles was duke of Burgundy and ruled the Netherlands and Spain before he became emperor.
Are you like skimming through wikipedia and reading dates?
Your understanding of this history is so retarded and lacking context it's funny.
Maximilian I married into Burgundy with Marie as his wife. It was his struggles and initial consolidation of Burgundy that brought the region into the Habsburg domains. Maximilian organized the marriage of his son, Philip, to Joanna of Castile, who then gave birth to Charles V. Philip died before he could make anything of himself otherwise, and therefore it was by Maximilian I's actions and the deaths of other potential inheritors of the Spanish crown that Charles V ever had the Netherlands and Spain as his domains.
What the fuck are YOU talking about in implying that Charles just magically ruled those regions before the actions of Maximilian? You don't know shit.
The HRE was never a state. It was always something of a union, trying to replicate a state established by Carlus Magnus but broken by his descendants. It was really just an international protection racket, which offered some small internal stability and initially a strong protection against foreign invasion. Poland, France, Hungary, and even Denmark may have been able to divvy up modern-day Germany and Austria between themselves if there was no permanent alliance system in place.
The rise of nationalism and the corresponding consolidation of power by Austria and Prussia rendered the Holy Roman Empire into a truly vestigial system which Napoleon could easily dismantle, but the Empire had slowly been losing authority since the high middle ages. Frederick II's failure to reign in the fiercely independent Italian cities was a strong moral blow to the idea of Empire, and the Thirty Years' War four centuries later killed most foreign and internal efficacy in the Empire's role as a protective system.
>he could not even be considered to "in some cases" possess simply because, well, he didn't have it, he wasn't king, period.
You're misunderstanding me.
Firstly, I should clarify that it isn't even important since the fact of the matter is a Holy Roman Emperor was passed down the lands of his vassal.
It's sometimes considered a part of Charles V's domains by association of Ferdinand's position within the Holy Roman Empire. No, read again, I'm not claiming that Charles V was the official King of Bohemia, I'm saying that Ferdinand was the Archduke of Austria when he inherited the Bohemian crown, and the Archduchy of Austria is a part of the Holy Roman Empire, of which Charles V ruled. Charles V's domains as collective Habsburg domains within and without of the Holy Roman Empire therefore, in some cases, include Bohemia.
I'm not the anon arguing about hereditary titles in the HRE I am just pointing out the Charles V and Bohemia bit. Which is where you claimed that the crown was passed to Charles V. Which it was not.
Yes Charles V was lucky, to have both the burgundian and spanish inheritage. His grand father planned well and had luck too. So, what does that has to do with the rest ? The Habsurgs played well, but it certainly doesn't mean the HRE was all powerful. I don't even get the point you're trying to make. The HRE brought little to Charles, as its strongest realm was Castille, not the HRE. The title of emperor merely gave him more prestige, but he barely spent time there, letting his brother rule the HRE.
Lmao, this nigga just switched from CK2 to EUIV.
The medieval HRE was the same system as the 19th century HRE. There was no discontinuity. Across the early modern period, various states left the Empire and the imperial structure (which was largely informal and moral) weakened substantially. But even in the 13th century, if the emperor wished to go to war with France, most of his vassals would not join him. They had even less of a "feudal obligation" than the nobility of France or Spain.
Crusader Kings 2 treats the Holy Roman Empire as basically an elective kingdom like Poland, but in reality the medieval empire was much more similar to what you played in Europa.
>The Habsurgs played well, but it certainly doesn't mean the HRE was all powerful.
You know what in the big picture I would actually be inclined to agree with you, and it would actually be nice if that were true since it would contribute to the Habsburg's inglorious image that I love so much, but their power as the Holy Roman Empire's, of which they ruled, power, was simply undeniable in the 16th century. Hell, until the got stomped in the 17th century, their Central European martial strength was still significant. They had strong allies and strong influence in what is today South Germany.
Another thing unmentioned is that, while overshadowed by French from the 12th century to the 16th century, the region collective was still powerful. The fact alone that it maintained German, Czech, and Austrian blood for its ruling dynasties, while Hungary, Poland, Naples, Portugal, and England all had French blood on the throne at one time or another, sometimes for centuries, should demonstrate the Holy Roman Empire's medieval rivalry of France, and its ability to actually maintain that. If it was such a weak pushover, then it would have been pushed over.
And in the end, when it was at its weakest and most fragmented from dissent and neglect, it was weak until its dissolution.
Well sorry, I concede, totally wrong.
Bohemian crown wasn't passed down to Charles V, but the fact of its inheritance to a ruler of the Empire qualifies as a fair demonstration of its local influence, to me, valid prior claims or not.
The Holy Roman Emperor was the strongest power in Western Europe for a while. It was not always weak.
That Holy Roman Emperor was significantly weaker than usual. Frederick Barbarossa was much stronger than Phillip ii and Richard I.
You could say one of the motives of the relative failure of that Crusade was the death of Barbarossa. He would be the unquestioned leader of the Crusade, as the most powerful monarch. With his death, Philip and Richard couldn't get in the same page.
Usually, the French Kings inherited lands of French nobles when they were the heirs. The Capetians got a lot of lands via marriage. The other way they acquired them was by buying them.
The lands of Matilda of Tuscany passed to the Holy Roman Emperor when she died without heirs. For a while, there were many non-dynastic Margraves of Tuscany.
>despite having little to no actual knowledge.
You're the idiot who knows nothing and who memes about the HRE without actually knowing shit. That's why they're mocking you by comparing your knowledge level to that of a video game
I still haven't even seen anyone attempt to define a "state" that would include the HRE in its ranks. |
I've been generally ignored when I point out that the Hapsburgs had power bases away from the HRE, and their continual accession to Emperor had a lot more to do with the power of their other estates and the money they threw around election time than the reverse.
But apparently I'm a videogame memester.
It does when you think HRE was always like it was in the Habsburgs era.
The HRE in the Ottonian era is not the same thing as the HRE in the Charles V era.
Thinking it was always the same is pretty much being a videogame historian.
Or maybe some people like to focus on the late medieval period because it's interesting, regardless of video games.
I personally find fragmented clusterfuck HRE to be more fascinating than unified HRE. Of course people are going to be attracted to a buzzing hive of angry autonomous microstates for the novelty of it. Otherwise the HRE is just a failed proto-Germany that decided that we wuz Romans n shit.
I find early HRE interesting too, but the reformation and thirty years war are infinitely better topics in relation to the HRE.
The process of fragmentation and collapse of the HRE is a very complicated issue, of course you can meme it in ">lel Germans" and ">Holy >Roman >Empire", but if you want an insight about it read about the Investiture Controversy, the Lombard League, the Philip-Otto War, Frederick II and the Great Interregnum.
CKII is more popular on here than EU is anyway, so I've no clue what you're going on about. I just really don't know much about late antiquity or early medieval Europe outside of pre-Norman Britain and the Byzantines. Would you rather I talked out of my ass about something I know nothing about?
HRE was the living proof that a perfect empire is too good for this cruel world... we meet in heaven!
>someone connected to the HRE makes that endeavor an Imperial action.
What do you mean? Charles was the Emperor, therefore the Italian Wars was a Imperial action.
Now, the Eighty Years' War was mostly a Spanish conflict, despite the Netherlands being part of the empire, since Philip II was King of Spain, but not Emperor.
It literally did. The Holy Roman Empire maintained several of its Northern Italian territories that it otherwise would have lost to the French. Naples isn't the only region concerned in the Italian Wars.
>Precisely. Because the war wasn't fought for the interest of the imperial crown, but for that of the spanish crown.
This is retarded.
The Italian WARS were fought for the interest of the imperial crown, even at its final stages under Charles V.
>What do you mean? Charles was the Emperor, therefore the Italian Wars was a Imperial action.
Not at all. Charles was the Emperor. He was king of Spain. He was king of Hungary. It was not a Hungarian action. When he promulgated a law or regulation in Hungary, it wasn't a Spanish action.
Just because a bunch of different offices were merged in the same person doesn't make those offices the same to each other.
>and its emperors were elected
Since when does the definition of a state exclude elective succession?
I'm not even saying that the HRE was a state, but I fail to see why you bring that in.
Besides since 1452 every emperor was from house Habsburg. It was de facto a primogenitur succession from then on.
>Since when does the definition of a state exclude elective succession?
If you're using a divine right model, (which I realize is unlikely, but possible, especially when discussing contemporary modes of legitimacy for the later eras of the HRE), making your executive answerable to other people does in fact de-legitimize your state.
It was Spain that protected Milan, not the HRE again. Why does it seem so hard for you to admit the strongest realm in Charles V empire was not the HRE but Castille ? It was Castille that provided him his best armies, Castille that paid the most for his war. When he abdicated, he gave to his son, Castille and Aragon and left to its brother the HRE. The Netherlands, despite being part of the empire was also left to Philip, because Charles knew only Spain was strong enough to protect the Netherlands from protestantism, while the HRE couldn't do shit.
At the time of Charles V, the HRE is already not fonctionning well and has no real strenght on its own. Charles can only rely on the Habsburgs possessions in Austria, but the german princes don't obey him, and even betrayed him when the gave Metz, Toul, and Verdun to the french.
Which, as people pointed out to you more than once in this thread, had NOTHING to do with Habsburgs being Emperors, and EVERYTHING to do with that they were Habsburgs, which would still get them Bohemian crown, regardless of who would be the Emperor.
>had NOTHING to do with Habsburgs being Emperors, and EVERYTHING to do with that they were Habsburgs, which would still get them Bohemian crown, regardless of who would be the Emperor.
No, it had to do with a lucky marriage and the power of the Habsburgs as bolstered by being Holy Roman Emperor's. Bohemian succession could have just as easily had a Pole take the thrown, the Habsburgs as Holy Roman Emperor's had hegemony and therefore influential marriages in the region, and lo and behold there's no better inheritor. The old dynastic claim was more of a coincidence than anything.
Keep being reductive though, your transparent bias about the HRE never inheriting the territories of others isn't transparent or anything.
>The problem is that someone argued that the HRE won those wars and that it proved that it wasn't weak.
But the HRE did ultimately win the Italian wars, that's just another way of saying they were victorious. Of course they didn't ultimately win alone. But soldiers of the region absolute contributed in the first 3 decades of the conflicts.
>But it was, and if the emperor had not been the spanish king with a claim to defend on Naples the french would have dominated the peninsula.
And the emperor would not have been a Spanish king if it wasn't for the empire that had preceded him. The significance of the HRE is entailed in this, but you just can't deal with it. Not as powerful as the Spanish does not necessarily mean weak.
The primary weakness of the HRE at this period was the development of the Protestant Reformation. Considering what the HRE has to be comparatively weak to; Ottoman conquered Hungary, France in the midst of religious wars and failure in Italy, and England which could do nothing but raid France once or twice; it's really not that weak. Considering the local forces mustered in the ensuing conflict of the decades after Charles's abdication, does that kind of devastation seem weak to you? Local mercenaries would not have ravaged their own country in the largest war in Europe if their forces were weak.
This discussion reminds me of the war of succession of the Julich duchy.
Some german prince died without direct heirs. Two other princes claimed his domains as inheritance, and the emperor demanded that they be returned to him. He then had to withdrew that and chose to support one of the two other claimants, but that wasn't enough and in the end the war ended with a more or less equal split (following the original suggestion of the french king...)
That was in 1610.
>And the emperor would not have been a Spanish king if it wasn't for the empire that had preceded him. The significance of the HRE is entailed in this, but you just can't deal with it. Not as powerful as the Spanish does not necessarily mean weak.
That's backwards. The Hapsburgs wouldn't have been emperors if it weren't for their other possessions. Frederick III spent huge sums to make sure Maximilian won the election in in 1486. When old Max got old, he borrowed a shitton from the Fuggers and the Welsers to make sure Charles got elected.
The Emperors turned out the way they did historically because of the strength of their fiefs that they held in their own name: They didn't get those power-bases by being the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Nope, those are the straightforward facts.
>The Hapsburgs wouldn't have been emperors if it weren't for their other possessions.
Well yeah, that's what being Holy Roman Emperor effectively means, being the biggest princes among the other princes of Central Europe.
>Frederick III spent huge sums to make sure Maximilian won the election in in 1486. When old Max got old, he borrowed a shitton from the Fuggers and the Welsers to make sure Charles got elected.
Yeah spending enormous sums of money on something doesn't say anything about its value. Oh wait.
>The Emperors turned out the way they did historically because of the strength of their fiefs that they held in their own name: They didn't get those power-bases by being the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Do you not understand how backwards and self-serving it is to separate the two? Do you literally think they would have pursued emperorship for no reason? Are you that blind that you don't see how that pursuit of emperorship by the strongest princes of the region reflects its importance? Part of the Habsburg's power-base is in being Holy Roman Emperors. Part of being Holy Roman Emperor's is initially having large domains and influence.
The de jure rights of emperors weren't always left de jure. The official role and influence of the Habsburgs in Central Europe without emperorship would have been minimal. That's kind of a big deal.
>Yeah spending enormous sums of money on something doesn't say anything about its value. Oh wait.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that it was non-valuable. It was definitely valuable. I'm saying that the military successes of Spanish and/or Austrian forces depended little on the Imperial status, and the wars in Italy would have turned out more or less the same had, I don't know, the Hohenzollerns been holding the Imperial crown. You can't attribute those successes to the HRE simply because an Emperor with no support of most of his "Empire" participated in those wars.
>Do you not understand how backwards and self-serving it is to separate the two? Do you literally think they would have pursued emperorship for no reason? Are you that blind that you don't see how that pursuit of emperorship by the strongest princes of the region reflects its importance? Part of the Habsburg's power-base is in being Holy Roman Emperors
Power base!= Importance. There were other things that the Hapsburgs wanted besides just more lands and more men.
>Part of being Holy Roman Emperor's is initially having large domains and influence.
*cough* House of Luxembourg.
>The de jure rights of emperors weren't always left de jure. The official role and influence of the Habsburgs in Central Europe without emperorship would have been minimal. That's kind of a big deal.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that had there been no HRE, the biggest, strongest German principality, the one whose rulers also control Spain, big chunks of Hungary, and the Low countries would have had minimal influence. The same way that other major powers bordering the Empire, Poland, Sweden, France, had minimal influence.
Lastly, your claim in 522248 is simply wrong; the claim of the Spanish throne had jack fucking shit to do with the Imperial throne. The Hapsburgs would have had it had Henry won the electorship, because he got the Spanish throne before he got the Imperial throne you daft retard.
>You can't attribute those successes to the HRE simply because an Emperor with no support of most of his "Empire" participated in those wars.
Well that "Empire" supported the first stages of that series of wars significantly, and were ultimately victorious regardless of their martial presence.
>Power base!= Importance.
Yeah, no, that's just retarded.
>*cough* House of Luxembourg.
[cough] had significant territory and influence at the time of their emperorship relative to other princedoms within the empire.
>Oh yeah, I'm sure that had there been no HRE, the biggest, strongest German principality, the one whose rulers also control Spain, big chunks of Hungary, and the Low countries would have had minimal influence.
What-what? Putting words in whose mouth?
Because I said
>The official role and influence of the Habsburgs in Central Europe without emperorship would have been minimal.
> had there been no HRE, the biggest, strongest German principality...would have had minimal influence.
I guess you'll just always be too dense to realize that the Habsburg's major developments in the 15th and early 16th century were largely in part due to their emperorship and the influence that entailed.
Those diets and marriages couldn't have gone bad at all had the Habsburgs not been emperors, but not because of their inherent influence you seem to think exists in a vacuum, but because they wouldn't have even been on the radar. You would have to be a complete retard to think the emprorship of the Habsburgs didn't greatly bolster their influence in Central Europe.
>The Hapsburgs would have had it had
The Habusburgs wouldn't have had jack shit if it wasn't for the ambition of Frederick III and Maximilian I in the role of emperors. There would have been no reason for Marie to marry Maximilian or Joanna to marry Philip if they had no de jure control over most of Central Europe, aka were not Holy Roman Emperors.
>Eleanor of Portugal literally married Frederick III because she preferred the title 'Empress'
>as Portuguese royalty, she has ties to Isabella of Portugal, mother of Charles the Bold
>this causes Frederick III to marry his son to Charles's daughter Mary of Burgundy
>only by the existence of Mary's son are the Habsburgs able to consider marrying into Spain, since there were no other sons
>series of lucky deaths of Spanish royalty leads to Habsburg inheritance of that after having married into the kingdom
>all of this because some Portuguese bitch specifically wanted to be with an 'Emperor' and not a King, Duke, or Prince
>Yeah, no, that's just retarded.
They are clearly seperate things. Real life isn't like some video game where kings are solely concerned with extending their wealth and power. Things like prestige and bragging rights matter, and were commonly pursued.
You think the Pyramids extended the power base of the Egyptian Pharaohs? Or any of the wonders of the ancient world for their respective polities? That doesn't mean they weren't built, or that there was no reason to build them.
>I guess you'll just always be too dense to realize that the Habsburg's major developments in the 15th and early 16th century were largely in part due to their emperorship and the influence that entailed.
No, because they were largely in part due to their dynastic structure, which gave them feudal ties in Austria, Krain, Styria, Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands, and then they used this leverage to become emperors.
The dynastic alliances was what created the Hapsburg development, not the Empire, and I have no idea why you're so resistant to the idea.
>You would have to be a complete retard to think the emprorship of the Habsburgs didn't greatly bolster their influence in Central Europe.
Which is, for about the dozenth time, not what I said. Please go back to the third grade, since reading seems to be hard for you. The Hapsburgs used their power, SECURED FROM BASES NOT CONNECTED TO THE IMPERIAL THRONE, to garner that influence. The Emperorship was a RESULT, not a CAUSE.
>The Habusburgs wouldn't have had jack shit if it wasn't for the ambition of Frederick III and Maximilian I in the role of emperors. There would have been no reason for Marie to marry Maximilian
Marriage of Maximilian to Marie, August 16th, 1477.
Maximilian's ascension to the Imperial throne, February 16th, 1486.
And I don't know, something something keeping Burgundy away from the French kings a la the goal of the Burgundian dukes for decades probably had something to do with it.
or Joanna to marry Philip if they had no de jure control over most of Central Europe, aka were not Holy Roman Emperors.
The interests in the low countries weren't connected to the Imperial status, but based on the former feudal tie to the Hapsburgs a generation before. It was to provide a means to contest with France, not anything to do with the HRE except in the most incidental of fashions.
>were ultimately victorious regardless of their martial presence
But the martial presence is the point. Or part of it, while nominal victory is not.
The question is "was the empire weak" ? Not "the emperor".
And the answer is yes, compared to spain, to france, the ottoman empire, even to england, the netherlands and sweden, the polish-lithuanians at times... So compared to european standards.
And more importsant, compared to what could have been its strength if the emperor actually ruled over the germans.
It was not insignificant, it was just weak as a political entity on the european scene.
>They are clearly seperate things.
Importance is separate from a power-base?
That would mean that power-base isn't important, since importance != power-base.
Too bad that's retarded.
>No, because they were largely in part due to their dynastic structure, which gave them feudal ties in Austria, Krain, Styria, Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands, and then they used this leverage to become emperors.
You keep trying to make these things mutually exclusive and it's so fucking dumb and futile it's hilarious. It's hilarious that your entire argument is just an attempt at reducing the importance of the Holy Roman Empire. Well too bad friend, it's history, the Empire is necessarily entailed and of large importance to the Habsburg's influence. It's reciprocative. It wasn't just a nametag. Anyone that isn't retarded wouldn't be this desperate to deny its contribution to the Habsburg's power.
>SECURED FROM BASES NOT CONNECTED TO THE IMPERIAL THRONE, to garner that influence. The Emperorship was a RESULT, not a CAUSE.
CORRELATION != NECESSARILY RESULT OR CAUSE, BUT BOTH, YOU ARE SO DENSE.
>Marriage of Maximilian to Marie, August 16th, 1477.
>Maximilian's ascension to the Imperial throne, February 16th, 1486.
>hurdur what is prospective rule I am a retard
>And I don't know, something something keeping Burgundy away from the French kings a la the goal of the Burgundian dukes for decades probably had something to do with it.
And you think some Austrian nobles without emperorship would have been able to to that so easily. Naive and biased, turd-o.
>or Joanna to marry Philip if they had no de jure control over most of Central Europe, aka were not Holy Roman Emperors.
Again, prospective emperor, keep up that denial though.
It's just funny at this point, I don't know what compels a bias like this to try and separate and simplify something like this. It's so blatant too. You just won't stop at anything to make the HRE seem so wildly unimportant.
>But the martial presence is the point.
Uh no, that they were victorious was my point.
>The question is "was the empire weak" ? Not "the emperor".
>And the answer is yes, compared to spain, to france, the ottoman empire, even to england, the netherlands and sweden, the polish-lithuanians at times... So compared to european standards.
No, the answer is 'not that simple'. Calling something as variable and complex as the HRE 'weak' in such an absolute way is just retarded. Keep doing it if you're compelled to, but know that it's a stupid oversimplification. I don't see how martial weakness is proven by the Swedish either. Engaging an opponent that strong in the largest war in European history at the time and taking down their king really doesn't demonstrate that supposed weakness.
>It was not insignificant, it was just weak as a political entity on the european scene.
It was a decentralized political collective on the 'european scene'. Considering inter-state politics was primarily headed by the Emperor, and the Emperor certainly could be quite powerful, I'm failing to see this vague weakness again. Other words describe it better, perhaps allude to weaknesses, but not this all-encompassing weakness.
It was your point and it was irrelevant to the point of the discussion : the power and lack thereof of the empire itself.
I said it was weak in a relative way, not absolute. Sweden was a small country that got its shit together while the big empire lost his, along with a third of its population.
That's not a vague weakness at all.
Then this weakness only really pertains to the period of the Protestant Reformation, since it began as a strong, expansive state that consolidated to such an extent as to have most of its dominions in relative cohesion for 500 years.
>Sweden was a small country that got its shit together while the big empire lost his, along with a third of its population.
Sweden was one of if not the most advanced military force in Europe in the Thirty Years War, to be steamrolled by them would demonstrate weakness. To engage them in the bloodiest conflict in European history and successfully kill their king in battle is not weakness at all.
It is a weakness to have been as violently internally divided, but that is not necessarily, totally weak.
But that literally happened when the Salians were emperors. Godfrey the Hunchback died without an heir in the late 10th century and his domain went to the emperor instead of Godfrey's named heir. It was only assumed that the emperor would give the land to the named heir, but the emperor didnt actually have to do so.
Hey /his/ I have a history essay on war and religion in medieval Europe with a focus on William I. I'm really struggling for ideas here, and would appreciate some help. The question is:
"Evaluate the roles of warfare and religion on the practice of medieval kingship"