Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Change current infobox map to "File:Holy Roman Empire (1789).svg"

The infobox map should show the countries' borders during the existence of the country mainly mentioned by the article. I think it is a good idea to use the map "File:Holy Roman Empire (1789).svg". Read the articles "Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Kingdom of France". The two articles use the maps show the countries' borders in 18th century during the existence of Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of France. Same reason for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.170.56 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really follow your logic. The Holy Roman Empire existed for nearly a thousand years. Showing it at its smallest, in the 18th century, is fairly misleading.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But the map "File:Holy Roman Empire (1789).svg" shows the countries' borders in 1789, near the collapse of Holy Roman Empire. Thus, I think my proposal is proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.170.56 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why you want to show it near its collapse. Look at Roman Empire. The map shows the Empire at its apex, just like the one here. If you showed it right before its collapse, readers would have no idea how large or important it was.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Due to the too long history of Holy Roman Empire (from 962 to 1806, more than 800 years but less than 900 years), it is better to use the map "File:Holy Roman Empire (1789).svg", which shows the countries' borders in 1789, near the collapse of Holy Roman Empire, in the infobox. Otherwise, the infobox map will seem too ancient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.170.56 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning. Unless you can find a consensus in favor of your change, the map is going to stay with the empire at its apex, which is most representative of the empire's historical importance. There are later maps in other parts of the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree either. There is a long discussion above establishing consensus for the existing map. Also, putting your edit in place during this discussion is inappropriate; per WP:BRD we retain the status quo ante while a discussion is in progress. In addition, you are already at four reversions today, violating the WP:3RR policy. Please do not restore your edit until you gain consensus here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How about the map "File:Holy Roman Empire 1190.svg"? This map shows the borders of European countries at the end of 12th century, while the territory of Holy Roman Empire is the largest. This map can better reflect the history then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.244.218 (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuremberg

Does Nuremberg deserve mention under administrative centers? It housed the imperial crown jewels and was often considered a sort of unofficial capital (we even have a source: "Nuremberg: The Imaginary Capital" in the references), for instance by Maximilian I, and was heavily involved in many of his projects. I ask for consensus here before adding anything because Nuremberg, despite all of its prestige and importance, never actually functioned as an administrative center as far as I know. Where would this information be best included in the article?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuremberg was a prosperous, independent-minded free imperial city but it was never in any way AFAIK a sort of unofficial capital or administrative center of the Empire, even at the time of Maximilian. As for the safekeeping of the Imperial regalia that was a bit anecdotal (especially after Protestant Nuremberg insisted in keeping the basically Catholic regalia) . --Lubiesque (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll look for more sources on this if you don't believe me, but I note that the Golden Bull decreed that Nuremberg was the first city in which an emperor should hold a Reichtstag after coronation. Additionally, Nuremberg having the regalia predates Protestantism.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's something free online (http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/z/zsn2a030488.pdf) pages 20-21:

Ausschließlich die Reichsstädte werden Zentren der reichsständischen Wirksamkeit, aber diese ist nicht so fruchtbar, um eine einzige von ihnen zur Hauptstadt erhöhen zu können. Seit dem 14. Jahrhundert nimmt Nürnberg die Spitze. Ihm sichert die Goldene Bulle das Privileg zu, daß der erste Reichstag nach Regierungsantritt des Königs in seinen Mauern begangen werden soll, und es erlebt auch bis zur Reformation über das Privileg hinaus viele Reichstage. Hier in Nürnberg hat das erste und das zweite Reichsregiment 1500-o2 und 1521-24, ein ständischer Regierungsausschuß neben dem Kaiser, seinen festen Sitz, und hier werden im Schutz der Bürger die Krone und Reichsinsignien aufbewahrt. Aber mit seinem wirtschaftlichen Niedergang im 16. Jahrhundert tritt Nürnberg in die Reihe der übrigen Städte zurück.

I distinctly remember the "inofficial capital" being called Nuremberg elsewhere, but I'd have to find it. Here the point is that Nuremberg was the most important city in the empire and also had important government functions.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a title (can't access the text): Rudolf Endres, "Nürnberg: Die "heimliche Hauptstadt des Reiches"" in Nürnbergs große Zeit. Reichsstädtische Renaissance, europäischer Humanismus, ed. Oscar Schneider Cadolzburg (2000), pp. 92-110.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Any resistance to my adding something along these lines to the administrative centers text: "Reichsregiment (Imperial Government). Attempt to form a permanent imperial government by Emperor Maximilian I, located in Nuremberg 1500-1502 and 1521-1524 respectively."

And under capital city. "The city of Nuremberg, the most important Imperial City from the mid-fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries, is sometimes considered to have been an unofficial capital. It was the permanent location of the Imperial Regalia and the emperor was required to hold his first diet there by the Golden Bull."

I would source it to the text I have found.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your viewpoint. In medieval time, it could be said that a number of cities were the "unofficial capital" of the empire for a while. For instance, Goslar, a free imperial city which enjoyed the favor of emperors in the 13th or 14th century. Four emperors in a row constantly visited Goslar and held court there for months on end. They loved the place, a large imperial palace was build, etc. I suspect one could argue that Goslar was the unofficial capital of the empire during those decades. Same with Nuremberg I suppose.--Lubiesque (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not my viewpoint, its a fairly common viewpoint, also expressed in the following additional links 1 2 3 ("During the Middle Ages, Nuremberg was the unofficial capital of the Holy Roman Empire") 4 ("At that time, Nuremberg was regarded as the unofficial capital of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations") 5 ("Nürnberg war streng genommen keine Hauptstadt, weil es davon im Heiligen Römischen Reich nicht eine"). The issue is not whether Goslar had important functions; it's that Nuremberg was probably the most important center of imperial power besides the imperial seat for the period in question.

I assume you don't disagree with naming it as the seat of the Reichsregiment?--Ermenrich (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Any further objections to my adding the info with the sources given above, or suggestions for how to better present it? I'm planning to include the Reichsregiment info as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm very busy in real life at the moment, but I will add this when I have some time.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that being "the most important center of imperial power besides the imperial seat for the period in question" doesn't actually amount to much at all. What permanent establishment of office-holders and admin staff for HRE functions was based in Nuremberg, outside the brief periods under Maximilian I? What examples are there of N exercising its power? The fact that Maximilian's scheme was twice abandoned surely tells us something, probably that a key feature of the HRE was that it could not support a "capital city" away from the emperor in any meaningful sense. Compare for example London or Paris in the same period - the king moved around, but much of the administration stayed in the capital regardless. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the statement that "Nuremberg was the unofficial capital city" is found in numerous reliable sources that I have cited above. This is widespread enough that I feel it deserves mention, and has its basis in both 1) the importance of Nuremberg 2) the requirement that the Imperial Diet hold its first meeting after an emperor's accession there (Golden Bull, 1356) 3) the requirement that the Imperial Regalia be kept there (1432). The choice of Nuremberg as seat of the Reichsregiment follows from the other three factors. Its not really about whether Nuremberg was actually a "capital city" with important administrative function; it's that its often associated with having had the prestige of one. This is, among other reasons, why the Nuremberg Rallies were held there.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

dissolution by a person not qualified for this task

The phrase "...until its dissolution in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars by French emperor Napoleon I." seems to be weird. How could a person, not qualified for this task, do such a thing? --94.217.12.153 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's because the Holy Roman Emperor formally dissolved it (not sure that removes the legality issue)...--Ermenrich (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Through an ultimatum. Still, it is misleading to say that Napoleon dissolved it, given the actions of Francis II. As Ermenrich rightly points out, the legality of Francis's action is not above dispute either, but it was effective. Srnec (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

meaning of the term "Sacrum Imperium"

The term relates to the christian transformation of the (anti-christian) old Roman empire into a christian one in order to avert Apocalyse predicted by acient prophecy. The term therfore is way older than many may expect. --94.217.12.153 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by that? The old Roman Empire had been Christian for many years, so I assume you're talking about the name change, but I don't see how that relates. Puncturedtomato (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Name section and "before and after Otto I"

The name section is currently sourced to the Lexikon des Mittelalters for the names of various countries, including the information that it was known as "French: Saint-Empire romain (before Otto I), French: Saint-Empire romain germanique (by Otto I)" not only is this highly dubious (they would've either called it the Empire Allemande or the Holy Roman Empire, not some hybrid of the two), it is not at all present in the article cited, which makes no mention of the name of the empire in any language. Similar claims are made about before and after Otto throughout the section. I suggest that this language be removed as well as the source, which only discusses the differing sense of ethnogenesis in France and the Holy Roman (German) Empire in the Middle Ages. Is there any disagreement?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. There was no contemporary 'name change' associated with Otto I, nor is there a 'name change' in English historical convention associated with his coronation. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

About the epic writing style in the article.

We must be more interested in showing the history of science, that is, a section that addresses the issue of progress and technical progress as well as purely scientific development without overflowing this and other articles only by religious, political, economic, military commissions , etc. --84.236.162.169 (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No capital city

Just to clarify: I found multiple published sources saying that the Holy Roman Empire had no capital city.

"Seven German cities you never knew were once capitals". The Local. 2016-08-18. Retrieved 2019-06-20.

• "The Holy Roman Empire had no fixed capital, as each king travelled between residences. Nonetheless, each of the rulers had their preferred place of court, and in the case of Otto I, it was Magdeburg."

Whaley, Joachim. Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806. OUP Oxford, 24 November 2011. ISBN 0191628220, 9780191628221. p. 13

• "The Reich had no capital city. It was fragmented into several hundred units represented in the Reichstag (405 in 1521, 314 in 1780), not including over a thousand other, often minuscule, entities that had no representation there."

Lawler, Jennifer. Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire. McFarland, 20 May 2015. ISBN 1476609292, 9781476609294.

• "The territories that made up the empire had no common laws, no capital, and no common authority."

Taylor, Alan John Percivale. From Napoleon to the Second International: Essays on Nineteenth Century Europe. Hamish Hamilton, 1993. p. 384.

• "Vienna was not the capital of the Holy Roman Empire. That empire had no capital. Vienna was simply the emperors' residence. Not the capital of a country before it became the centre of an empire, it was thus unlike London or Paris which had been the capitals of England and France before they became the centres of the British and French empires."

Cohn, Henry J. "Representing Political Space at a Political Site: The Imperial Diets of the Sixteenth Century" (Chapter 1). In: Kümin, Beat (editor). Political Space in Pre-industrial Europe. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 28 June 2013. ISBN 1409480410, 9781409480419. Start: p. 19. CITED: Same page.

• "[...]the Empire had no capital city and therefore no place where the diet could meet regularly and secure its own building and permanent bureaucratic base, at least not until the Perpetual Diet at Regensburg from 1664."

Brockmann, Stephen. Nuremberg: The Imaginary Capital. Camden House, 2006. ISBN 1571133453, 9781571133458. p. 15.

• "The Holy Roman Empire had no capital city, and emperors traveled from town to town in order to demonstrate their power and presence [...] but a few cities, such as Nuremburg or Cologne, were clearly more important than others." - It goes on why Nuremburg was important for that particular emperor

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If so, the "capital" section should be removed from the infobox, or it has to be indicated clearly there were never been capital cities, but just important centers in a period of time.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC))

I added to the infobox that there was no single centralized capital, citing The Local (and if people feel an academic citation is needed there are several to choose from) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

the term 'Holy Roman Empire' is not correct

Hello, as I learned in school and later on in my university studies of history the correct term for this empire from the medieval Carolinger empire to the Austrians till 1806 must be in German:

'Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation' that is in English:

'Holy Roman Empire of german Nation'

thats are my sources - nothing else

--Metzner (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the "name" section. At any rate, we use WP:COMMONNAME, which is Holy Roman Empire in English.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Ermenrich: the vast majority of English-language sources call it "Holy Roman Empire" and this is the title used here. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

State Religion of the Holy Roman Empire

I am really annoyed of anyone who constantly change my revisions on HRE's State religion. Again, The Peace of Westphalia and Augsburg didn't make Calvinism and Lutheranism an official religion of the empire.The Emperor always remain a Catholic and despite the toleration made by the two treaties, it doesn't made the two sects official considering no written proclamation was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalistandlegitimist (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The principle is cujus regio, ejus religio, so yes, it was official in some territories.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

All imperial institutions were effectively divided between Protestants and Catholics. Both sat on the supreme courts as judges and both had seats in the diet and electoral college. This was by design. Catholicism was not the state religion of the late empire just because it was the religion of the emperors. I am not aware of any constitutional impediment to the electors choosing a Protestant. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Holy Roman Empire was not a State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.58.116 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please change the map

The map posted here is not correct at all. 1) Prussia (East Prussia; the Teutonic Knights' realm) was not part of the HRE. Now I see that in wiki, there's a mention the emperor made Prussia and Livonia part of the empire in 1224. At this point not a bit of Prussia was in TK hands... and he could the same well claim Constantinople, Cairo or Baghdad as his lands. And well, I don't see Livonia being part of HRE in this map anyway. 2) Eastern Pomerania (West Prussia) was not part of HRE empire as well. Never. It wasn't part of Teutonic Knights' state yet too. It was just a Polish province and it was no more HRE than Mazovia or Minor Poland was. 3) Silesia is considered part of HRE. But it was just one of Polish provinces, not more nor less dependent on HRE until 1158, when Polish princes were forced to return this region to their brother whom they have banned from Poland earlier on (when, inspired by his imperial wife, he tried to get rid of them). But while it made the rulers of Silesia owing restoring their rule to HRE, they weren't more integrated into the empire than the rest of Poland, which was forced to bow to the emperor at this point too. So, while, in next century, Bohemian kings (acting as self-claimed Polish kings) subdued most of Silesia, and even more so when, another century later on, the region was officially transfered from Poland to Bohemia, this region became part of HRE, I am not quite sure you could count it as part of HRE in 12th century. And if you count it in, you should do it with the rest of Poland. The border of Silesia drawn in this map is not quite perfect as well. 4) Lebusland and Neumark are shown as part of HRE, while Major Poland is not. This is, yet another, mistake. Heresson (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In the future, please add new topics on talk pages to the bottom of the page. Now, I've wondered about the inclusion of the State of the Teutonic Order myself. The map is sourced to the following map, which is from "Plate 26/27 of Professor G. Droysens Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas, published by R. Andrée, 1886". I have no idea if this Atlas is all that accurate. I have never seen a map of the HRE that includes the state of the Teutonic Order, but I was unaware of any questions regarding Silesia.

The map has the additional problem of not specifying a year - obviously the boundaries changed between the beginning and end of Staufen rule.

Do you have reliable sources (preferrably in English or German) for your claims?

Does anyone know of a more chronologically specific map that might help?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Staufer-era map (dated 1195) in Peter Wilson's Heart of Europe shows Silesia as part of the HRE (although I tend to agree that it wasn't until 1335). It does clearly indicate the Polish border as somewhat imprecise (it isn't a bold line like the rest of the border). Srnec (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is there anyone else we could ping to join the debate? I find it sort of odd that the map from Droysen kind of approximates the boundary of the then German Empire.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts: this map appears to contain regions the Holy Roman Emperor had some form of surzerainty or other influence over. To the best of my knowledge the Teutonic State and Sardinia were not part of the HRE. However, the Emperor did appoint the head of the Teutonic State and held influence over the pre-Kingdom of Sardinia states. Emperor001 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding was that the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order was elected by its own members and confirmed by the pope.Gazzster (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Compare the Golden Bull of Rimini to Pietati proximum, the latter of which indicated that the Teutonic State owed its sovereignty to the Pope, though the former indicates some relationship with the Empire. Emperor001 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked the article for Grand Master of the Teutonic Order and it appears you are correct that there was an electoral process. I apparently mistaken on that point, but I still think there was some sort of influence of the HRE over the Teutonic State thus why some maps include it with the HRE even though it was not formally included. Emperor001 (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's included on most maps. I'm in favor of removing it - as I noted above, it's based on a map from the German Empire and probably there's a (perhaps unconscious) bias to making the border to the East resemble that of the German Empire. At the least, we should find a more recent map to base ours off of, like the one mentioned by Srnec.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Emperor001 (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

First Reich

@Ermenrich: I cannot see p. 102 of the work by Lauryssens. Does it say that the term "First Reich" was coined in 1923? I think that, while Nazi use is notable, the important thing is to note if the term "First Reich" was a Nazi invention or a pre-existing term. Was it, in other words, a name for the HRE (in Germany) or was it just a part of Nazi historiography/propaganda? Srnec (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The guy who coined it wasn't a Nazi, if that's what you mean. As far as I can tell this means "First Reich" was coined in 1923. This would certainly imply so. I think prior to the end of the German Empire it was usually called the "Altes Reich".--Ermenrich (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If I'm entirely honest, I'm not sure it deserves to be mentioned here at all. It's not a name used in historiography to refer to the HRE, it is only relevant in explained why its the "Third" Reich. I wouldn't mind removing it entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, but if it stays we should probably add Altes Reich (which parallels Ancien régime). —Srnec (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"of the German nation"

The sources being used to cite an official use of "of the German nation" do not appear to be very good. Both are websites this and this. On the other hand we have an indirect citation of Herman Weisert in the article already saying it was never official and I've recently come across another in online version of the Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz: Unter Ks. Karl IV. (1346-78) tritt die dt. Bezeichnung H. auf, der ab dem 15. Jh. der inoffizielle Zusatz "deutscher Nation" beigefügt wurde. Under EMperor Charles IV (1346-78) there is added the German predicate holy, to which in the fifteenth century the inofficial addition "of the German nation" was added. I think we need better sources for it being an official part of the name (rather than widely thought to have been an official part in the nineteenth century, as is claimed in the German article de:Heiliges Römisches Reich, citing Weisert directly).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Here is an academic paper on the subject. I have linked it to History of Germany. All the best Wikirictor 22:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikirictor, I don't see anything about "of the German nation" in that link??--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Another source, this time in ENglish, that "of the German nation" was not part of the title [1] (Wilson, Heart of Europe, p. 255):

Much has been made of the addition of the words 'of the German Nation' to the title 'Holy Roman Empire'. Appearing in 1474, this combination was used more frequently after 1512 without becoming the Empire's official title - despite numerous later claims to the contrary. Protestants were far more likely than Catholics to add 'of the German Nation' when discussing the Empire, but eventheir use was inconsistent. Only one in nine official documents issued after 1560 included any reference to Germany, usually referring simply to 'the Empire'.

Cf. also [2] ( Stollberg-Rilinger, Holy Roman Empire, p. 12).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Flag, Crest, Dates

Wikimedia Commons has for a long time carried primary sources of historical illustrations of HRE flags, shields, regalia, and dates. Until now, user-made illustrations atop the article neither matched those nor primary sources in this very article and in Flags of the Holy Roman Empire. The crown is ahistorical and out of proportion. The real crown is available right here as are heraldic representations in primary sources. The flag is 19th-century Austrian and at best could be similar to flags of the Napoleonic Wars, although this one is unclearly drawn.

Thus, the flag and “coat of arms” (it is not even that) are incorrect and contradict what has long been established on Wikipedia.

Please study what is freely available on Wikipedia before substituting. Q douglasii (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where is the red border in the pictures at right? Srnec (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The red border is from this third image which I have added.

Historical Imperial Banner.

As it contradicts the other 2 images, it was probably just a stylistic choice and should be removed. Also, according to this Wikipedia page, the banner changed to match the new emperor's coat of arms. The dates or banner should be adjusted to match this fact. This image seems to be more true to primary sources than the original, but it still needs some adjustments. FoxTech20 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the eagle is better in the new imagine, however Q douglasii's recent edit included another strange border around the flag, so I reverted it.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The border is historical and essential to authenticity. Reference is provided in the flag’s description. Without it, the flag is inaccurate and imaginary. Borders were not a stylistic choice, but governed by custom and tradition. The Emperor’s banner was without a border; in normal use, it was embellished with greater detail in depicted arms, so as to advertise his hereditary achievement.

In the other banners and flags however, borders were added. For the war flags, particular borders were again added, according to set rules and custom. For the imperial banner—which this is—a red border with fringe was used. The flag provided has that red border and the additional, required fringe. It is made according to the rules and each fringe is drawn according to the historical norms. Albrecht Aldorfer, in his painting on the right, documents this historically. Thus, it is not strange, but historical and governed by the rules governing the imperial flags.

Look at the examples to the right, the first example compares the flags of two heads of state, one with a blue-dragon flag, and the Holy Roman Emperor. These are personal flags.

The next example shows battleflags, here flown by troops in battle. They are cut square This marks them as battleflags.

The last example, as noted above, is the Imperial Banner, the flag used in the article. It has a red border and a particular kind of fringe, shown precisely. As designed, it is visually stunning. By the way, look how long and prominent the fringe is.

The only improvement would be to replicate electronically the shimmering surface of gold satin, as used on the historical banners. Q douglasii (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Q douglasii, I think you're a bit confused there. The first example shows the flag of the Visconti of Milan, not the emperor of China, as confirmed by the text (die wiederpringung Maylannd zum Reich). No border on the flag. It also is the flag of the Reich, not the emperor, and the emperor is Maximilian, not Charles (look at the file data). The second image also doesn't show a border. You're going to need more than one example of the flag having a border, which seems to be just a stylistic choice, as FoxTech20 already said. Given your rather spectacular misidentification of the first image, you'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for how emperor's banners were made.

Regarding the second image: the text says wann vnd zuo welchen ziten der vorgenant römisch kung gen Bernn kam (when and at what time the aforesaid Roman King came to Bern). The scene is clearly of a peaceful reception of the Emperor, who would therefore not be caring a battle flag - or why is everyone greeting him also carrying the same flag?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This image from 1545 shows essentially the flag we have now, with the fatter eagle - no border and identified specifically as the flag of the Reich. I think we should leave as is.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone might like one of these. One with fringe, one without. Save for reference.

File:Reichsfahne.jpg

File:Reichsfahne Kaiser Max (1486-1519).jpg

By the way, that’s not what what I meant. Each flag depicted is a different flag for different purposes.

They have different names, and who can use them was restricted by law. The same rules apply today. Each context in each picture is very different. One is the personal flag as head of state. Modern rules are about the same now as then. There is a flag for a head of state, another for the realm as a whole, and another for battle. It doesn’t matter how they are described in the caption, the usages are different, well-known, and obvious in the pictures. Usage is one reason they are even cut differently. The battleflags—technically, “Ordinarfahnen”—are not the flags of the realm, and are square in the picture.

The troops are arrayed in battle-formation, they are obviously battleflags. The head of state had his flag. Other official contexts in the realm had a flag. In battle, the troops bore a different version, then as now. Q douglasii (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Really, battle formation? I suppose that's why half of them are kneeling?

You need to supply a source for your assertions. We aren't just going to take your word, given how much obviously false information you've already stated.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those really are knights formed up in a military line and those really are men at arms kneeling in livery, in abeisance to their commander, the Emperor. The article **Template** **requires** a **civil ensign**, not some other flag of another type. Also, the **complex** Napoleonic-Era eagle may not be the best choice for most of the 1000 years of the Holy Roman Empire.

But it’s up you. Q douglasii (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source, provide it. Otherwise you need to stop wasting our time with baseless statements.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ermenrich, the User:Q douglasii not delivered a single source so far. His creations always diverge from the original depictions, he creates files based on his hypothetical ideas, what the files should look like, but that's wrong. If he adhering to sources or original depictions, it could be considered, but without that there is no chance. There are plenty of other files that are more historically accurate and also graphically superior, which are still a better choice than those that create Q Douglasii. --Dragovit (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire 800-870's (unfinished)

The Holy Roman empire was a large empire formed by Charlemagne's coronation "Emperor of the Romans" in 800 and consolidated by Otto I (King of Germany) when he was crowned emperor in 962 by Pope John XII. Note: the name Holy Roman Empire wasn't often used until 1200. 843: In the year 843 the Treaty of Verdun divided the Carolingian Empire into 3. East Francia (Holy Roman Empire) devoloped to be one of the most powerful and unique states in europe. 870's: Holy Roman Empire expands into the south east and west (Netherlands, luxembourg, Belgium, France, Czechia, Austria) ill continue sometime this sometime 73.218.72.35 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sardinia

The maps are wrong: Sardinia never fell, de jure or de facto, under the jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Empire. Sardinia was under the Byzantine Empire, and it became more and more autonomous until it became completely independent, with the formation of indigenous kingdoms, called "giudicati". Only in 1420 the last kingdom ("giudicato di Arborea") was defeated, and Sardinia finally fell under foreign domain, under the Crown of Aragon. You can check at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sardinia , or in every book about sardinian history. Frederick II gave the title of "King of Sardinia" to his son Enzo, but he didn't have legal rights, neither effective power, to do this, because in Sardinia there were independent kingdom, which did not even legally fall under his jurisdiction. --Floydpig (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Popov

The citation Popov (2008). History of the Old world. Abagar. p. 102. ISBN 9789544277857. refers to this book. If one looks up a description of the contents at any of a number of different places ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]), they all say the same thing:

• Древен Изток
• Древна Гърция
• Македония и елинистическите държави
• Древен Рим
• Древен Запад

In other words, nothing about the Holy Roman Empire. The claim that this source verifies an area of 680 thousand km² in the year 1032 is extremely dubious. I could tag this as needing a quote to verify ({{quotation needed}}), but I have instead elected to remove it entirely. Don't re-add it without a quote from the source which verifies the claim. TompaDompa (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the final line

            Древен Запад

refers to "Ancient West" in Bulgarian, so Holy Roman Empire etc. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire is never included in ancient history. And anyway, where's the quote from the source which verifies the area claim? TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have ordered and taken the book to your house you cannot say it doesn't have the data as given by prior users. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and unless you have you cannot say it does. I'll quote WP:V: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. I'm disputing that this source verifies this claim. It's up to you to demonstrate that it does. I'm also not convinced that this is a WP:RELIABLE source for this information, but that's a separate issue. TompaDompa (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well the same rule applies to you before deleting the book from the article. You have to have the book and say for example, that Ancient West is only for Antiquity and not the Holy Roman Empire. Could you perhaps restore the information until your claims can be verified? Altanner1991 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No actually, the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that a cited source verifies the claim it's attached to is upon the editor who adds the claim and the source. By the sound of it, you haven't read the source either, so I don't understand why you assume that the source verifies this claim. What I will do is ping the editor who added this in the first place, Toshko Vihrenski. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The original editor had provided page numbers. How can you verify against that when you don't have the book to confirm? Altanner1991 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've given my reasons for being suspicious. If you want a few more, the cited page is number 102 out of 816. Your argument is that that probably corresponds to the last of five sections in the table of contents which are consistently listed in that order (never mind the ridiculousness of claiming the Holy Roman Empire would ever be described of as the Ancient West). Are the rest of the sections 20 pages each and the last one 700? What's more, the same page number, 102, has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia to support a claim about the Umayyad Caliphate, which definitely isn't "Ancient West" and has very little reason to be mentioned on the same page as the Holy Roman Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Like I said you are removing the book without having read it yourself so I disagree with your move. It seems the book had a page with population statistics about 1000 CE. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes you say that? TompaDompa (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We're supposed to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I know, and I am. But assuming good faith does not mean ignoring signs that something is wrong. From experience I can say both that it is difficult to find sources for historical population figures and area figures, and that it is very common that such sources are misrepresented by editors. For that reason, I scrutinize such claims. Call it a "trust but verify" approach, if you will. Anyway, you didn't answer my question: what makes you say that It seems the book had a page with population statistics about 1000 CE.? TompaDompa (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You had just mentioned, that the book was used as a reference, for the Umayyad Caliphate for population statistics. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it was cited for the year 724 (indeed, the Umayyad Caliphate no longer existed in the year 1000). That claim was also extremely dubious for many of the same reasons as the one on this article. The figure it was cited for over here also wasn't for the year 1000, but the year 1032 (and also wasn't a population figure but an area figure). I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that the book had a page with population statistics about 1000 CE based on this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You say that 1000 isn't 1032 but that shouldn't matter. What matters is that we need the book to remove a well-written source. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You mention Popov but not Wolfram. Why is Wolfram not a reliable source? Altanner1991 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I never said Wolfram is not a reliable source. I said that it doesn't verify the claim it was attached to. Check it out for yourself here. TompaDompa (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am calling bullshit on this too. The book is obviously about the ancient world. That it would go into such detail about a high medieval state is extremely unlikely. Even if this information is indeed in this book, why should a book about the ancient world, by an author specializing in ancient history and Thracology, be cited as a reliable source of information about the size and population of a high medieval polity? Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a much more fair argument. The OP had mentioned the WP:RS debate was a "separate issue" and the way you just put it, I agree it is here the primary reasoning. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Lubiesque added the following text to the lead, citing Whaley, back in March:

However, while by the 15th-century the Empire was in theory composed of three major blocks — Italy, Germany and Burgundy — in practice the links between these blocks and the Empire had become so distended that only the Kingdom of Germany remained, nearly all the Italians territories for instance having become in effect part of a narrowly-defined Habsburg dynastic patrimony unconnected to the Empire.

I have no problem with the first part, but the second half I modified to say:

in practice the Burgundian kingdom was lost to France and the Italian territories, ignored in the Imperial Reform, retained only the feudal link to the emperor himself.

Johnbod reverted. My main problem is with describing imperial Italy as "a narrowly-defined Habsburg dynastic patrimony unconnected to the Empire". Medici Tuscany was not a Habsburg patrimony, and it was connected to the Empire. What really makes imperial Italy different in the modern period from Germany is that the institutions created by the reforms of the late 15th and 16th centuries did not apply there (except the Aulic Council). So the Italian states were not represented in the Reichstag, not listed in the Reichsmatrikel, etc. But the feudal suzerainty of the emperor was recognized. —Srnec (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I was first struck by "Burgundian kingdom", which will confuse people, when talking about the 15th century. I think we all agree on the main points. Maybe:

"...in practice only the Kingdom of Germany remained, with the Burgundian territories lost to France, and the Italian territories, ignored in the Imperial Reform, mostly either ruled directly by the Habsburg emperors, or over-awed by their military power." - or something. Perhaps that is extending too much to the 16th-century situation. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I've no problem avoiding the phrase "Burgundian kingdom". My only problem with your wording is "over-awed by their military power". Might I suggest: "...in practice only the Kingdom of Germany remained, with the Burgundian territories lost to France and the Italian territories, ignored in the Imperial Reform, mostly either ruled directly by the Habsburg emperors or subject to competing foreign influence." I have in mind France, Venice and the Papacy, which all had designs on imperial Italy in the 15th century. Srnec (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Suscertain"

Under the heading "Ostliedlung", the article contains the following sentence: "From the late 12th century, the Griffin Duchy of Pomerania became suscertains to the Holy Roman Empire." Being unfamiliar with "suscertain", I looked up the meaning of the word, but I found nothing - that word doesn't appear to exist. The only other examples of its use I could find were obvious typos for "ascertain". So what the hell is "suscertain"? It's not in ANY dictionary, not even as an "obsolete" or "archaic" entry.

Could someone please replace this word with a REAL word, so we can actually understand what this sentence means? I'm guessing the original writer meant something like "vassal", but instead they came up with this imaginary word. Or perhaps English isn't their first language and "suscertain" is some mangled French word or something. 101.178.55.113 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Might it be a misspelling of suzerain? TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fairly plausible. I might change it to that now 101.178.55.113 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Situation of the Italian city-states

The situation of the Italian city-states explained in the article is inaccurate, its very well known that the Italian city-states that were formally part of the "Empire", such as Mantua, Milan and Modena were all ruled by local noble houses, such as the Gonzagas, Este and Sforza, so, the article says on the top that in the 15th century it was "mostly either ruled directly by the Habsburg emperors or subject to competing foreign influence". So let me explain:

1- NONE italian state was ruled directly by the Habsburgs "emperors" in the 15th century.

2- The first Italian city-states one to be ruled by this family was Milan only in the 16th century, but not by the Austrians Habsburgs ("emperors") but by the Spanish Habsburgs (Kings of Spain).

3- At the time, there was no "foreign influence" in the Italian city-states that were part of the HRE, see the examples of Mantua, Modena, Tuscany or Montferrat. The foreing influence was only seen in the 18th and 19th centuries (by the Habsburgs).

So, please, can someone correct the inaccurate sentences on the page?

Thanks. Toucheyt (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your rewording is better, but not all of imperial Italy was city-states. Large parts of imperial Italy did come under foreign influence during the Italian Wars. Srnec (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I just changed "city-state" to "territorial entities", I think it's better explained now. About the "foreign influence" i think this could imply that from the 15th century onwards, "imperial" Italy was always in the hands of foreign powers, as was the case in Burgundy with France or Milan in the 16th ceuntry with the Spanish-Austrians, so I thought it best to write only what situation "imperial" Italy was in at the time!

In any case, thank you very much for your help and suggestions! Toucheyt (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well Multi ethnic yes but with a absolute German majority

cit: later referred to as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western and Central Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars.[6] The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it also included the neighboring Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Italy, plus numerous other territories, and soon after the Kingdom of Burgundy was added.

The majority was germanspeaking. In the italien part italien speaking and in the romanic part mainly french speaking. In the rest the german languae in different dialects was the lanuguae of administration and commerce. With some ethnic minioritys Chzech and Slowenians. After the spilt of of the most french and italien areas the german language became more and more domiant in the rest.

It was actually not called "HRE of the German Nation". This wasn't the imperial title but rather a means of saying "German lands within" and quickly fell out of use after the 16th century. Only occasionally those two terms "Holy Roman Empire" and "of German Nation" appeared together and never so in the signum of official documents.

Other than that: yes, it definitely was majority German speaking, especially at the end.--MacX85 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Latin name order

Elsewhere, I've seen SRI (Sacrum Romanum Imperium) more than SIR, and rarely I've also seen IRS, which I'm fairly sure is incorrect. I haven't seen SIR outside this article. Which one is it? Does it actually matter (I don't know Latin myself, so I wouldn't know if multiple orders are valid)? Perhaps also add a source for the proper order, in case the article is correct, or in case it's corrected, since I'd be surprised if I'm the only one who has seen this quirk of the name. --FIQ (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, I decided to Google the variants (yes, I know the results is to be taken with a grain of salt, but still). SRI (which is what I also assumed was correct) gives 67.1k results, while SIR gives 53.5k. IRS gave 23.4k, but as mentioned beforehand, I'm fairly sure this one was wrong anyway. --FIQ (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The coat of arms presented in the infobox belongs to the Austrian Empire (Habsburg-ruled Imperial Austria-Hungary), not the H.R.E. Presenting this coat of arms here is absolutely wrong. Here is a link to the correct coat of arms: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Roman_Empire_Arms-double_head.svg --Szekelyga (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Capital

Hello I am new. I found this page and thought, it would maybe be better if Aachen and Prague were also in the list of the "capitals" of the HRE. Adrianolusius (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you supply a reliable source to support that? if you are new to Wikipedia it might a good idea for you to read WP:Verifiability and WP:OR on why we need sources to support edits and WP:CITE on the importance of inline citations. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Last edits about the Italian situation

This paragraph that was recently added is causing a bit of discussion and i think it was added unnecessarily:

"The status of Italy in particular varied throughout the 15th to 19th centuries; some territories like Piedmont-Savoy became increasingly independent, while others like Tuscany became more dependent due to the extinction of their rulling noble houses causing these territories to often fall under the dominions of the Habsburgs and their cadet branches."

So, i tried to reword this with this edit:

"The status of Italy in particular varied throughout the 15th to 19th centuries; some territories remained highly independent, while others became more dependent due to the extinction of their ruling noble houses and the ascension of the Habsburgs and their cadet branches to the thrones of these states."

I tried to reword because the Italian territories were highly independent since at least the 12th century, so, some of them only remained in this way, so, i mean, theres no reason to say that some territories "became increasingly independent", since it was a fact from previous centuries, not only from the 15th century onwards.

And for a unknown reason someone reverted my edit, in which I think I explained very well the situation of the Italian states. As i said, no territory in Italy from the 15 to the 19 century "became increasingly independent", they were already in this way since the 12th century.

And another mistake about this paragraph is about the Habsburgs as heads of some of the Italian states, because it doesnt mean that it was more dependent of the HRE, but more connected to, since the Emperor and the Grand Duke of Tuscany (for example) were not the same person, just members of the same family. And the Duke of Milan was always the King of Spain, so, the head of state of Milan was the Spanish King, not the HR emperor. In fact, Milan is probably the only state of the big Italian states that in fact lost its independence, since it was ruled by a Spanish viceroy. (In a very nice example of how a de facto dependent state is ruled) all the other states remained having as a ruler the dukes and Grand Dukes that lived in the state they ruled, with the difference that it was now a foreigner (a Habsburg), not a Italian.

Nelosj96 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to everything i told, its a page about the HRE, so, its main focus need to be the situation of the states inside the HRE and the relation about the HRE and these states, not if a state is part of the Habsburg or the Spanish crown, its not relevant here and even less in the top page of the article. Nelosj96 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And maybe i didnt said the most important thing about it all, excluding Milan, all the Habsburgs possessions mentioned in the page startes only in the 18th century (decades before the collapse of the HRE), so theres no reason to say about the 15,16 and 17th centuries, all times that the states were ruled by italian noble houses like it was since the early stages of the city-states. Nelosj96 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

All the north Italian states save for Venice and the Papal State were "in" the HRE to some extent. I don't think any of them can be described as truly independent in the 12th–18th centuries, not Milan, not Tuscany, not Piedmont. Genoa is perhaps the only exception: a nominally imperial state that was truly independent. Srnec (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, yeah, in the last few hours I was reading some articles about the situation of the Italian states, and if i could delete most of what i wrote above i would do that, but i don't know if it's against wikipedia rules. I was wrong in some statements and expressed myself really poorly. The point i was trying to explain was the de facto independence of some of these states until at least the 18th century, because i didnt see a change in states like Tuscany/Florence from the time it started a de facto independence (maybe in the 12th century) to the last days the Medici ended their rule in the state. I now realized (reading some articles) that Tuscany really lost its de facto independence after having the Habsburgs as Grand Dukes. Piedmont in my opinion was always part of the HRE, not only de jure but also de facto since it even had a vote in the Imperial Diet. Milan i see with more interference of the HRE than other italian states during almost all its time as a HRE state (wars, invasions, etc) and obviously lost its de facto independece when it was part of the Spanish Empire (being ruled by a viceroy). i agree with you about Genoa, for me it was the most independent state so far, it virtually had no interference of the HRE in its whole history. So, my only point of view was that there's no reason to say that something varied from the 15th century to the 19th century, and citing Tuscany as an example, since the Austrian Habsburgs only started to direct rule a Italian State in the 18th century (excluding Milan with the Spanish branch). In any case, thanks for your time and i saw that you are someone who really understands history, wikipedia is lucky to have an editor like you. Nelosj96 (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)