Can someone explain the HRE for me? How did they manage to be the geographically largest kingdom/empire in medieval europe, yet fail to really do anything? I mean of all that I've read about them, it seems to be a giant mess of internal squabbles and other petty bullshit
Nobles were freely able to wage war with each other, conduct their own internal affairs largely uninfringed, had very little obligations to the emperor in terms of taxes and soldiers and so more or less acted like their own countries rather than constituent lords of an empire.
you are thinking of it as a unified entity, as for example the roman empire or the french kingdom
it was not (for most of its existence barring early years)
it was more like a federation, a set of bureaucratic and traditional tools loosely unifying various realms with various agendas
A European Union comparison would not be totally out of place really. You have the individual countries competing, but there is an underlying (or overarching?) set of laws, regulations, ways of doing things etc.
Few emperors had any real power. It looks big on a map, but that's because most people only have knowledge and understanding of modern nations that are completely unified. The HRE consistent of dozens of entities, free cities, dukes, barons and so on. They didn't pool their manpower and taxes like a modern nation would, so being the biggest player around didn't matter much because all the nobles and landowners didn't share their allegiance and goals.
Imagine if every US state was more or less independent - there's a president but he has no real power because each state more or less rivals the POTUS in power. All states go about their own business, Ohio gets picked apart by Canada and receives no help from the Duke of Texas because he doesn't give a shit.
Yes. Medieval France used to be a huge clusterfuck and the King had less power than his vassals.
But France improved. It started with Philip Augustus (Who deserve his nickname) making his demesne bigger, then Saint-Louis becoming a judge in the feudal matters, Philip IV creating the Estate Generals, etc... Until the end of the Hundred Years War, where the King of France had a standing army of his own, definitly becoming THE power in France.
The HRE never improved. It continued to be ridden with petty lords fighting each other for shit.
It's complicated, since you need to know pretty much 500 years of history, it's disintegration was a slow matter.
If you want to look for topics read about:
>The Investiture Controversy
>The Lombard League
>The civil war between Philip of Swabia and Otto of Saxony.
>The reign of Frederick II
>The Great Interregnum
>The Rise of the Habsburgs
>The Golden Bull
internal conflict as well as clashes with poland made the position of one of their dukes (jaromir) precarious, so he turned to the german king (henry) for support and incorporation into the empire
Being 'german' wasn't a requirement to being a part of the HRE, since they had no concept of ethnic identities back then. They had French, German, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Polish speakers etc
Gold coins are not made of pure 24k gold, their value fluctuated based on gold purity and the kingdom's reputation for keeping the purity constant.
>This triggers me errytiem.
Can't watch the video, are you triggered because they misnamed the kingdom of the Netherlands or because napoleonic kingdoms like Holland trigger you in general?
The HRE used to be very powerful. Their disadvantage is that unlike the Capets, plenty of Emperors died without adult male heirs, which ended changing the dynasty too often.
Frederick II (at the time, the strongest monarch in all of Europe) messed up, as well.
>centralization = improving
Take a look at this bootlicker, I suppose he is a commie too.
The thing is, for it's whole existance (except when it was sacked by foreign armies during the 30 years war, of course), the HRE was the richest, most prosperous, most cultured part of Europe. Modern intellectuals hate it because it was a traditional state based on custom, instead of a modern nation state based on bullshit laws that intellectuals get out of their asses so they can rule a country as "specialists" and "bureaucrats".
It stopped being the most cultured part of Europe after the investiture controversy.
It stopped being the richest after Italy and Flanders left the empire.
Meaning that it wasn't either for more than 2/3 of its existence.
This is wrong. Italy and Flanders were the richest part of Europe. Culturally, bith France and Italy had way more importance than the HRE. The fact is the HRE was weak. Or at least it became weak. It had a few powerful emperor in the middle ages, but after that the strenght of the habsburg emperor lied in their own personal lands, not in the HRE itself. The prostetant princes always betrayed the emperor, first by offering Verdun, Toul and Metz to the french. How weaker can you get ?
Well but not really. Venice and all venetian land were not HRE, and by the 15th century that was half northern Italy. Savoy and Lombardy were part de jure, but not de facto, since Savoy was basically independent or french aligned from the duchy onward, and Lombardy aside from the french spell was really Habsburgian rather than imperial. Tuscany was independent since the 13th century, and Romagna was Papal. So really what's left? Mantova and some scraps, that were ruled by mostly autonomous and self appointed imperial vicars? Big whoop.
as far as i understand, the "german" culture was more like everything derved from the franks so northen italian, flemish, and everything east before the slavs was considered "german", even french
German culture started out as every barbarian kingdom north of the Alps, then after east and west frankia separated and formed distinguished cultures, it meant eastern frankish culture. Italy was always a separate thing, whereas flanders was a border area between french and german culture.
Eastern Europe was heavily colonized by German settlers in the Middle Ages (often on behalf of Slavic kings). The first German university was founded in Prague for example, which had a predominantly German population until the mid 19th century.
There was even a German upper class in Northern Italy until the 10th century. Many German myths derive from the age of early proto-German in kingdoms in Italy.
>yet fail to really do anything?
But what measure? They didn't blob and paint the map like fucking EUIV, because that is not how the world worked. In terms of cultural, economic, religious etc accomplishments the HRE was extremely prolific. Music as we understand it today was invented and grown there.
There are a couple of books in the pipeline for 2016 that look quite promising. So far my knowledge of the HRE is only based of German sources.
Ones to watch:
The HRE did entail what we know today as Germany.
>the HRE was Germany
>EVERY. SINGLE. THREAD.
No, ever single thread it's
>Germany was the HRE
Which is correct. The history of Germany is entailed in the history of the Holy Roman Empire. The states of the region that we today know as Germany were, in the HRE, the primary governing body. The electoral estates were all German states.
That was not what I was complaining about, it is plainly obvious that Germany (in a regional sense) was a part of the HRE. My problem is with people that think the HRE as a whole was just "medieval Germany". It was not an ethnic nation-state, existed before a time when regional and dynastic affiliation was often far more important than ethnicity, and contained many countries which were powerful and significant in their own right.
>the electoral estates were all German states
>HRE was the richest, most prosperous, most cultured part of Europe.
Remove Italy, Flanders and Bohemia from it.
Suddenly it's below European average but perhaps that's because gaymanoids were in charge.
No, anon you're mistaking it.
Gaymans didn't went east to build things from the basics. They've settled in existing cities and villages and now some of them still think these are their cities. This is unlike colonists do - colonists build things out of scratch, massacring local population is an optional thing, but the very important thing is that they start anew. It isn't a surprise to anybody that in states like California, which were taken from Mexico and in cities like San Francisco which again - even by the way it's called - was something Americans took over in the long run rather than building it, you can find the most vile, treacherous subhumans you can imagine.
A good warning for you gaymans - the immigrants you're letting in will do the same. I hope you'll respect Turkish right to own Berlin and Syrian right to own Koln because it won't take long until they'll be able to request ownership over them.
Have you made your obligatory immigrant's blowjob today?
Did your girlfriend helped those 4 beefy Syrians to assimilate already?
Why not? You're gayman after all, not some kind of animal like aussies. You should do it.
Says the guy whose prefered model of state was applied during the Jacobin period of the French Revolution, last a few months and it was so terrible that it managed to revive French Catholicism as a result.
What is ironic is that SJWs claim to love diversity, but hate the most diverse state that ever existed in Europe.
Yep, I'm sure if I go on Tumblr and Twitter right now I'll see dozens of enraged anti-Holy Roman Empire content created by fat girls with problem glasses and dyed hair. What the actual hell are you talking about?
The best thing Napoleon ever did was end that shitcan of a pseudo-state.
France was a lot more populated than Germany in the middle ages. Paris was the biggest city in Europe at that time, and had the most important university. Gothic architecture, was born in France, and crusaders were mostly french. The french king was, most of the time, more powerful than the emperor.
>Says the guy whose prefered model of state was applied during the Jacobin period of the French Revolution
Voltaire never wanted that kind of state, he prefered Enlightened Absolutely with king as head of the state, he thought the commoners are too stupid to give them much power.
I advise caution there, mate.
You would be absolutely right that in the culture and nobility of the Czech lands, German influence was strong. But you have an arguably stronger slav influence amongst the actual people living there, as the Germans didn't tend to assimilate all that much otherwise.
>Can you please actually explain what you mean instead of repeating this ad nauseum?
Why are you on this board if you don't know what those basic phrases mean?
It means that their status in the HRE was largely honorific, and that they were otherwise, at least up until being passed to the Habsburgs, relatively autonomous and not particularly involved with electoral or political matters of the HRE.
Yes, 30 Years out of nearly 1000.
It was a realm of peace for the majority of its existence.
I guess the Kingdom of France wasn't a peaceful realm either since one of the wars went for 100 years whoa dude lmao.
>You should at least know something about history before you decide to post here.
Yeah okay bud, give me one period of internal unrest as lengthy and devastating to the Holy Roman Empire as the Protestant Reformation. The closest thing is its dissolution 200 years later. You'll find that its existence prior to the Peasants War was quite peaceful, especially after early consolidation. Minor feuding and small wars of succession are all that really occurred within its borders otherwise. Habsburg-Swiss conflicts were largely contained. Italian city states were probably the least peaceful part of its Medieval history, and that's more important to Italian history and a footnote to the HRE. Compared to its neighbors getting ravaged or raided by steppe hordes, Muscovites, and the Ottomans; until the Protestant Reformation actually ramped up in the 16th century, it was a fairly peaceful place.
>So was the role of the emperor and even the empire itself, what is your point?
That even compared to the emperor, that Bohemian status within the Empire was more honorific.
Real electoral estates and the emperor could actually effect change in their collectively controlled regions.
Bohemia wasn't an estate involved in this process, Diets were for the other electoral states and the emperor to decide on matters.
Every major city was mainly German inhabited. It was probably more German than parts of modern Germany.
>Every major city was mainly German inhabited.
Care to show those historical demographics then?
Because Germans are still completely outnumbered by Czechs today, and all I've read are historians referring to an otherwise vast majority Czech population.
>Every major city was mainly German inhabited.
No that's just bullshit. There was a German linguistic presence everywhere in the cities, but all non German speaking areas still mainly spoke their native language. There was no concept of ethnicity back then either
Well, Germans were displaced after WWII. Prague was seat of the emperor, even the first German university was founded in Bohemia. In the 19th century, Kafka wrote in German - because the city was predominantly German for over 500 years. We know that because, apart from all the works of art and architecture from German masters, the records in church books are giving us very detailed records of the population back then.
Well, the fact they all had German names at that time is another clue. On the other hand, to argue they had a Czech majority - a people that couldn't write in their own language until the 15th century - is going to be quite difficult.
Anyway, offical records may be useful. Too bad it's already quite late in Australia...
>Well, the fact they all had German names at that time is another clue.
A clue easily explained by simple expository facts, like for example the names of Bohemiam castles, and the towns which derived their name from them, were given by German masons, and do not denote a majority German population.
The Teutonic order was a separate entity from the HRE, and it was a diverse multinational organization not unlike the knights Templar. They mostly had Germans and poles, but there were members from all over central and eastern europe. You should really read into this stuff before spouting your own ethnonational bullshit, because people back then didn't give a fuck about it the same way they do now
It was exclusively German. It was named after Germans. Teutons=Germans
It's like saying the Polish Order was multinational. The kingdom of Poland was in fact the major enemy of the Order. And the ethnic origin of someone in a world of nobles and kings was probably the single most important issue in life. You're welcome.
Did I trigger a HREboo?
HRE was such a waste of an empire. I wish it would always be in the state of interregnum, at least that was interesting, and let pic related to happen.
Otokar II Premysl did nothing wrong.
>Otokar II Premysl did nothing wrong.
Clearly didn't do much right either.
I can just tell you're some assblasted pole that refuses to believe anything other than 'le polish ubermensch destroyed the German scum at grunwald: DDD'. But that's not how history works. You can't apply your ethnic circlejerk to the middle ages, because it didn't exist. They were called 'Teutonic' order because they were founded by Germans in the holy Land. From that point it became a multinational crusading order just like every other crusading order. But hey you can believe whatever nationalist drivel you want, Pyotr, doesn't change the facts
It's true that German mercenaries helped to defeat the Teutonic Order at Grunewald. However only German nobleman and citizens of German cities were allowed to become knights.
Oh, you'd be surprised. The church can provide very detailed records of every soul born, christened and buried. The main tool in genealogy btw
Not a single one, sry.
>Oh, you'd be surprised. The church can provide very detailed records of every soul born, christened and buried. The main tool in genealogy btw
Do you have any actual source to prove that all of the HRE was germanized and the main cities colonized by Germans?
You show me a Polish Teutonic Knight (lol) and I'll dig a little bit deeper. Deal?
Although there are probably no sources prohibiting women from membership. So female knights... must have been a thing.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying 1/3 of Medieval Bohemia was German.
>The town began in 1142 with the settlement of the first Cistercian monastery in Bohemia, Sedlec Monastery, brought from the Imperial immediate Cistercian Waldsassen Abbey. By 1260 German miners began to mine for silver in the mountain region, which they named Kuttenberg, and which was part of the monastery property.
kutna hora is not a particularly great example, the region is straight in the middle of bohemia and there were plenty of smaller villages or townships present in the area before the establishment of the monastery - and the population influx during the silver rush was hardly a solely german affair either, as the likes of caslav and kolin had mining operations going on for decades by then
you are however correct in that german people were a sizeable chunk of medieval bohemian population, indeed they had been invited to settle, mostly in the sparsely populated border regions, by czech rulers on several occasions
The french king had a hard time becoming more unified too. Gonna dump some maps that make it more clear.
I wonder what Voltaire would think of the fact that he is remembered for a slightly humorous quote repeated ad nauseam by autists on the history section of an Estonian Accountancy Forum.
Notice how Philippe Auguste needed to use violence in order to achieve this not so big amount of land.
Notice too how, during the 100 years war, the king had again lost direct control over most of France. Had the english won that war, maybe we would have threads asking why the kingdom of France was such a clusterfuck.
You realize that the Teutonic order only used only German and Latin for administrative purposes? They wouldn't have recorded actual names of polish/czech/whatever Slavic knights in a Slavic language, they would've germanized the name. So no, I can't give you actual Slavic names of knights who were in there, but they did exist, the same way there were English Templar knights or spanish hospitallers, because crusading orders were multinational
No, you are making that up. They didn't even used to speak Latin, it's not like they were priests or even real monks. You know, language was a big issue back than. Those brotherhoods had distinctive origins and served solely their fellow countrymen.
The whole idea of the Medieval world was that your destiny was predetermined at birth. You were either born or nobleman or a peasant. As a result one's ancestry was extremely important. This applies to city culture as well, like guilds and noble citizens.