HRE is 100% holy, roman and an empire
you can't prove me wrong if you tried
It was pretty based imo I don't know why /his/ memes against it. Very sophisticated governmental and judicial structures.
Well done, OP. Very well done.
HOWEVER
>>1313307
>>1313322
First, was the Holy Roman Empire holy? It is hard to imagine that any worldly kingdom can be truly holy given the things that people have to do to stay in power. The Holy Roman Empire was certainly not holy. For example, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was excommunicated by the pope for his role in the investiture controversy. In this controversy, the emperor wanted to keep appointing high church officials as emperors had been doing in the past. Appointing church officials on the basis of politics does not seem like a holy practice.
Second, was the empire Roman? It is once again hard to say that it was. Of course, the emperors were crowned by the pope. This could imply that Rome was the center of the empire. Also, the empire was supposed to be a recreation of the Roman Empire and Latin was its lingua franca. But the empire was not truly centered on Rome. It was more of a Germanic empire that really only paid lip service to the idea that it was Roman. It was not truly a remaking of Rome.
Finally, was the empire an empire? I would say that it was not. The Roman Empire was truly an empire in that it was ruled quite strongly from its center. At most times in the Roman Empire, the provinces were not in any way independent. By contrast, in the Holy Roman Empire, the emperors lacked the power to enforce their will throughout the empire. Your text mentions that the popes would make alliances with various regional powers to try to check the power of the emperors. In other words, the Holy Roman Empire was more of a loose confederation of states whose emperors could not truly dominate the regional powers.
>>1313475
>not holy
It was so holy it stank to high heaven. Holiness at the time was considered to be poor hygiene. You wouldn't be accusing the Germans of bathing regularly, now would you?
>not roman
De jure the Emperor paid homage to Rome. Acknowledging papal supremacy is what made it Roman, as opposed to Rhomaoi.
>not an empire
You realize you just gave the actual definition of an empire, right?
An empire is defined as "an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government, usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom.
>>1313322
Leftist historians dislike the Holy Roman Empire because they believe the most sophisticated form of government are when you have bloated central authorities employing a lot of intellectuals as bureaucrats, that way these leftist historians can easily find a job.
>>1313814
central authority is necessary to the creation of a strong military
see: Prussia and then French absolutism.
once war-making becomes a profession, mere patriotism among the citizens is not enough.
>>1313854
So basically the argument against the HRE is that it wasn't efficient enough at killing other people.
>>1313814
>implying that the HRE could do anything except sit there and get cucked militarily and politically by France and Prussia post-30YW
>ignoring that the absolutist governments have always been the most powerful
Try harder.
>>1313952
According to that argument the USSR was the most advanced civilization of all time. Followed by Maoist China.
It is quite surprising how fans of Enlightened philosophy are revealed to be closet communists in love with absolutist power, though.
>>1313962
>most advanced = most powerful
he didn't even say that you dingus
the fact of the matter is that centralized authority is better at fighting wars than decentralized authority
>>1313962
You can have all the autonomy and state's rights you want, but when it turns you from a powerful body that can defend its people and borders into the shitty, corrupt mess that was the HRE post-Peace of Westphalia, you've fucked up. Great empires are centralized empires.
So like, what did the HRE actually do? What was the point of it? From my (admittedly little) understanding the states mostly bickered and quarrelled amongst themselves. Was there no actual outward military expansion?
>>1313952
At least we learned from our mistakes, right guys?
R-right guys?
Guys?
>>1315954
Forgot to respond to you (which was the point of the pic above). Theoretically the advantage of the HRE was a combination of autonomy and common defense. A duchy or city state could run itself more or less independent of the Emperor most of the time, but (in theory) was safer than it would be for its small size because (again in theory) attacking them would provoke the entire Empire.
The question of course was whether or not they could keep their shit together long enough to mount a common defense, which varied greatly.
>>1313322
The late HRE was pretty shitty. The great HRE jurist Pufendorf literally called it a state resembling a misshapen monster.
>>1313794
>You realize you just gave the actual definition of an empire, right?
Not him, but isn't an empire a nation that submits (either through military conquest or diplomatic annexation) another nation to the former's rule? In an actual empire, you don't have an emperor putting kings in the capitals of the conquered territories like this pic >>1313499 would suggest. Instead, an emperor would put governors in charge of a conquered province, men of trust which would be either or both military leaders and skilled bureaucrats. Not to mention that an emperor does not make a nation an empire. A republic could hold control of several subjugated regions and call itself an empire (don't think about the early, pre-punic wars Roman Republic, as it was basically just the region of Latium and several client states (subjugates) and allied states (the so-called Socii).
What /his/ says when it denies the HRE of it's status of empire is that the lords and vassals had gained a lot of independence and power compared to the emperor, there was no cohesion or collaboration and the lords could've probably tried a coup against the emperor if only they would've chosen to unite against him, but then again it is likely that all of them wanted the imperial seat for themselves and didn't want to share anything with the others. Long story short, you'd be more right to call it a huge kingdom with intestine conflicts or even a federation of divided kingdoms that did not trust each other rather than a united empire.
Also it was holy when it was founded because it had the blessing of the pope, but it lost its holiness when the Papal State realized all the germanic emperors, generation after generation, would try to fuck Rome and do whatever they want. In this case, the status of holy only refers to the Pope's blessing and approval of the empire and emperor's actions.
Continue
>>1313307
>holy
>roman
>empire
>>1316099
>In an actual empire, you don't have an emperor putting kings in the capitals of the conquered territories
This is possible though. Emperors 'outrank' kings and can appoint vassal kings. Tamerlane did this with Khans, because he wasn't a descendant of Ghengiz Khan.
Continuing from >>1316099
As for the status of "roman", the same logic of "blessing and approval of the pope" could be applied to it because it was just a honorary title. If the mongols came to Europe, wipe the germans from central Europe but then eventually convert to Catholicism and submit to the Pope's will, the the Khanate would literally become the Holy Roman Khanate (didn't mean to reference the Finno-Korean Hyperwar btw) because the pope said so. But if we discuss genetics, then they're absolutely not romans, just descendants of one of the tribes who grabbed the romans by the balls.
ALTHOUGH if we take ethnicity in consideration (which is the language and culture and, consequently, the religion of a specific people) then the germans were indeed romans because they followed roman laws, believed in a religion that the romans used to follow in their last decades of dominance and spoke latin as well. But then again, the same could be said about the romans being greeks. After all, their originary religion involved household spirits and ancestor cults before they chose to convert to the hellenic religion. The romans made marble statues that recreated the human proportions with as much fidelity as possible, admired poetry and philosophy and believed in the olympian gods but with different names and with a slightly changed background and lore. Can we say that the romans had become a greek empire? No.
Also I forgot to mention that the title of "holy" also comes from the fact that initially they were very eager to eradicate paganism from all of Europe and that they had fought against the moors that invaded Spain. But that title would fall for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
Also the moment Germany became protestant was the moment no catholic nation could see them as "holy" and the concept of "holy" is strictly subjective, so the HRE was not holy to the orthodox, the catholics, the muslims and any other faith.
>>1316117
But aren't emperors just kings who control one or more kingdoms (or just nations, to put it simply) other than their own? Imagine the WRE lost its provinces of Gaul, Hispania, Africa, Illyria and the germanic border, but survived and kept Italy and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Can you still speak of an empire? No, the whole of Italy had by now become fully roman and the ancient territories of Etruria or Samnium didn't count as subjugated colonies anymore. Italy would just become "the kingdom of Rome" in such a situation, although the romans themselves would never accept to be degraded to a kingdom.
Unless the term "empire" refers to a definition encompassing a broader group of features and examples. After all, the persian king was called "king of kings" but his nation was the "persian empire". In that case, I would be willing to accept that an empire can have an emperor with several subjugate kings working as governors but with much more independence, but still the HRE's problem of the lack of cooperation between the emperor and his lords persists. You can't have a disunited nation constantly on the verge of civil war for petty reasons and local lords with more wealth, power and soldiers than the emperor and call it an empire.
>>13161171 >>1316087
Persia and its Satrapies also beg to differ. Shahanshah means king of kings for a reason.
Now, if you want to deny hegemonic/federalistic empires their place as legitimate empires, then I suppose you can make your point here.
But the (Achaemenid) Persian, Ottoman, and Hapsburg (pre & post HRE) Empires would be some of the more important states that don't get to be called empires any more. Personally I'm not comfortable with that.
>>1316176
I fully agree with you. Under Charlemagne the HRE compassed the kingdoms of Italy, Germany and France and could be called Holy, Roman and Empire. After him that wasn't the case anymore.
My point was that Emperors can have kings ruling in their empire and have it still be called an empire, as long as those kings actually obey the emperor.
>>1316204 >>1316176
Exactly. Here's a funny chart since you guys said what I wanted to better than I did and you're being so cordial.
Cheers!
>>1316182
>Persia and its Satrapies also beg to differ. Shahanshah means king of kings for a reason.
So it wasn't just some popular meme but an actual title then. That clears up any of my doubts, thanks.
>Now, if you want to deny hegemonic/federalistic empires their place as legitimate empires, then I suppose you can make your point here.
Federalistic empires are a delicate subject. You could call it "federalistic/hegemonic" when a king ruled over other kings. In that case, it could be considered an empire just like Pericles' Delian League or the persian empire itself. But if that's the case, then even the USA, which is one nation but many states and several ethnic groups all together, could be considered an empire due to size, the presence of a central rule with a recognized authority by the semi-independent peripherical administrations and the cooperation between central and peripherical authority. This is something that's present in the USA, but we can't call it an empire, yet we call the HRE an empire when it lacks all of those features? It's kind of confusing when it comes to definitions. I guess the USA would rather not be called an empire due to their reputation as freedomfighters rather than subduers, although they pretty much could be called as such.
>But the (Achaemenid) Persian, Ottoman, and Hapsburg (pre & post HRE) Empires would be some of the more important states that don't get to be called empires any more. Personally I'm not comfortable with that.
I'm beginning to think that the definition of empire basically depends on the historical context. I mean, in antiquity an empire was a nation subduing and annexing another nation with which it shared borders most of the times. By the time of colonialism/imperialism, an empire is basically a european power conquering territories in Africa, Asia, Oceania and other continents that weren't Europe. In that case, the Austro-Hungarians wouldn't be an empire for colonialism's standars, just an outdated one.
>>1316245
Colonial Empire and Empire are two different things. They don't contradict each other and they're not totally unrelated but one doesn't directly cause the other to exist. This is the first difference you have to exist to make a definition of empire that makes sense.
There's two french empires, the empire of Napoleon I and the empire of Napoleon III. Yet the french colonial empire existed before and after them.
>>1316204
I'm glad to see I'm not just spouting nonsense. For a moment I was about to doubt my own belief.
>>1316231
>That chart
Lel I've seen that few days ago. It's amazing how because of politics the finnish could actually inherit the title legitimately.
But why emulate a dead empire when you could make a better and more original one? It's better to be remembered as a protagonist rather than a fanboy after all.
Cheers, to the best board I've ever been in and to the coolest guys I get to listen and talk to!
>>1316268
This is the first difference you have to understand, I meant.
>>1316268
So a nation can be a colonial empire but not an empire or the other way around? I kind of understand now.
>>1316278
More that a nation can have a colonial empire without being an empire in and of itself.
Like, the Dutch had a colonial empire run by the VOC, but they were never even close to being an empire in the other way.
Same could be said of Carthage back in classical times - they had a merchant/commercial empire but were a republic of sorts without an analogue to an 'emperor'.
>>1316852
>Same could be said of Carthage back in classical times - they had a merchant/commercial empire but were a republic of sorts without an analogue to an 'emperor'.
Wait so that means that an emperor is needed for a non-colonial empire to be called an empire? Fuck, I was wrong then. I thought the government type of a nation did not determine its status as an empire or not.
I mean, I know there's an emperor most of the times, but I'd expect that empires had more to do with their border-wise possessions than with their government and leadership.
>responding to a bait thread and giving detailed answers
wew lads
>>1316099
>Not him, but isn't an empire a nation that submits (either through military conquest or diplomatic annexation) another nation to the former's rule?
How do you think the HRE started to begin with?
Besides, at times the HR Emperor was also the Emperor of Spain and most of the New World. At the same time as fighting the Turks and sowing the seeds of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The HRE was an empire so imperial that even it's fractured descendants would be empires in turn.
>>1313947
An empire that can't enforce its own authority over its own citizen is no empire
>>1316278
>>1316852
Having colonies does not make a nation an Empire, the term "colonial empire" is a shorthand but the better term is "colonial possessions" or "colonial holdings". Britain wasn't an Empire when it annexed large parts of North America, it only became one with the final conquest of India, but still Americans talk about fighting "the British Empire" during their revolutionary war.
>>1318137
The Qin empire barely controlled its territories. The Qin state controlled everything within its territory.
Centralization is not what makes an empire. In actuality, most empires were decentralized.
