Avignon was in the Empire, no? As was Bologna. So it certainly wasn't exclusively German.
I think there's at least some debate whether it could be viewed as Roman. When Odoacer was appointed by the East as King of Italy, is he ruling part of the Roman Empire or is it dead? And is the eastern Emperor the sole authority for deciding the ruler in the west (considering throughout much of the latter history of Rome, there really wasn't really any authority that could decide the issue besides whomever was victorious in battle).
Of course, the obvious response to this is that the character was so different to not constitute the same entity regardless of who might have lawful authority to consider it extended. Then again, I think there is some point where the same might be true in the East. After the Crusaders instituted a Latin ruler instead of a Greek one, did the Roman Empire disappear in the east?
I think a more interesting question is whether the people at the time actually viewed the Holy Roman Empire as a continuation of Rome or as something separate?
Byzantium, while claiming to be roman, was nothing of the sort. It was a Greek led empire. And the idea that the HRE was "Holy" or "Roman" is just laughable.
Gosh, every state and their mother was claiming succession to the Roman Empire. I'm sure even Switzerland said they were the true successor at some point.
Does anybody really care? States don't exist in the same way dynasties do. You might get the house when your parents die, but that's assuming people with mounted cavalry didn't commandeer 4/5ths of the house before that happened.
I'm also too tired to care about making a good analogy for this thread so whatever.
I think a more interesting question is whether the people at the time actually viewed the Holy Roman Empire as a continuation of Rome or as something separate?
If Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome is trustworthy, they (meaning the royalty and aristocracy in the regions we now call France, Germany, and Italy) saw themselves as the greatest thing since the Western Roman Empire in the West. At the time, the "continuation" of Rome was...well... the East Roman Empire. It was still a strong and viable state.
I'm certain you can dig up some quote of Frankish or Germanic kings claiming to be the "Roman Emperor" in the west, but I think that was more to establish themselves as a title above smaller kingdoms than to imply some sort of continuity with the Romans. After the Frankish Kingdom broke up, they were more concerned with being the successor to Charlemagne than any other Roman.
EDIT: Regarding membership in the HRE...just about every Lombard state in North Italy except Venice was part of the HRE. Check out the Guelph and Ghibelline factions on wiki to see how influential HRE politicking was on the peninsula.
The presence of Czechs, Frogs, Slovenes, Poles, Danes, Italians, Swiss, Walloons and Flemings would suggest otherwise; this is quite apart from the anachronistic appeal to nationalism and national sentiments which didn't exist.
christos200 said:
Are you trying to rewrite history in this forums??
The 100 Years War was a dynastic war between the House of Plantagenant (which at one time ruled more land in France then the king of France!) and the House of Valois over who had control of the French Throne. If I remember correctly, the "English" still spoke French and viewed England as a tax-base for their richer continental holdings.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
