The Flow Chart of History

[Plotinus]

Fair enough!

 

[Dachs]

This flowchart looks exactly like the one that's in the back of those Hammond's Atlas of World History books.

Well. The Holy Roman Empire to me was a huge question. Firstly, the HRE is to me, comparable to the EU. Member states were part of it, but not exactly ruled by it.

Only after 1648.

So I decided to leave HRE out. Secondly, regarding the Carolingians and Merovingians, from what I know, they had more control over various areas. However, the few German states that existed to form Germany, spent most of their time as a vassal or tributary to the two Frankish states rather than as part of it. Vassal States are considered to have some form of self rule so I left them as their vassals rather than "Province of Carolingian Empire"

For example, in chart 2 Bavaria is show as "Duchy of Bavaria" at various times, the Duchy was a vassal of Carolingian, but not really ruled by them. Whereas, further down the Bavarian Chart, the Celtic-Germanic population of the Bavarian region was under direct or at least, stronger rule of the Roman Empire and listed as "Province of Raetia...."

Similarly, in the Wuttermberg line, the Duchy of Alamannia was absorbed into direct rule of the Carolingian's (noted down) before receiving Vassalhood of "Duchy of Swabia"

Im unsure of Branderburg and Thuringia past.

The Rhenish areas had been under direct Salian Frank/Merovingian/Carolingian control for the entirety of those polities' existence.

Im doing Italy now, and I tell you, that its a freaking mess. Things gets so blurry before 1000 AD

Italy is far easier than Germany.

 

[aronnax]

This flowchart looks exactly like the one that's in the back of those Hammond's Atlas of World History books.

Hammond wha?

Only after 1648.

Really? No one listened to Charles V either. No Protestant anyway... HRE is just a weird political mess. It's not really a state. It was not even an military alliance. It was a loose member union. Perhaps I can colour HRE members in Yellow or something.

The Rhenish areas had been under direct Salian Frank/Merovingian/Carolingian control for the entirety of those polities' existence.

Yes. But the Predecessors of the German Empire, Swabia, Old Prussia, Branderburg, Bavaria, are not near Rhenish areas. Saxony maybe... I think I'll create an inset to link Saxony to Frankish Rule.

Italy is far easier than Germany.

You think that will be true but then you reach the whole Fall of Rome-Odacer's Kingdom-the fact that there are three Kingdoms of Italy-Byzantine, its kinda hard to find out where is where. I have to do a bit of guesswork in their names too.

 

[Dachs]

Hammond wha?

It's a cheap, short atlas of mostly-European history. In the back of mine, there is a political flow chart remarkably like yours, except it looks more artsy.

Really? No one listened to Charles V either. No Protestant anyway... HRE is just a weird political mess. It's not really a state. It was not even an military alliance. It was a loose member union. Perhaps I can colour HRE members in Yellow or something.

No, it definitely was a state, with federal judicial, fiscal, and military organizations, an elective rulership, and the works. Charles V was listened to, until people revolted against him - and if you think people don't revolt within states, you're delusional. Even if you decide arbitrarily that the HRE in even the late medieval period is somehow less of a state than the highly decentralized French kingdom of around the same period or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, you're still ignoring its origins. The Ottonian and Salian Empires, probably up to the Interregnum, certainly fit any criteria for inclusion as relatively centralized territorial agglomerations.

Yes. But the Predecessors of the German Empire, Swabia, Old Prussia, Branderburg, Bavaria, are not near Rhenish areas. Saxony maybe... I think I'll create an inset to link Saxony to Frankish Rule.

Rhenish Palatinate (which did also belong to Bavaria for a time), fool. Brandenburg and Prussia also both controlled extensive territories in the Rhineland even before the Congress of Vienna, and the Habsburgs had the Vorlande. Why Bavaria is arbitrarily included as opposed to Baden, Wurttemberg,

You think that will be true but then you reach the whole Fall of Rome-Odacer's Kingdom-the fact that there are three Kingdoms of Italy-Byzantine, its kinda hard to find out where is where. I have to do a bit of guesswork in their names too.

Odoacer didn't call himself a king, for starters, he was a patrician. Officially, he ruled as a viceroy of Zeno. Theoderic was the first Gothic King. So: Western Empire => Viceroyalty of the Eastern Empire => Gothic Kingdom of Italy => Eastern Empire => Exarchate of Ravenna, Theme of Sicily, Lombard Duchy of Benevento, Lombard Kingdom, you get the idea, then a lot of those unite into the Carolingian kingdom of Italy, then you go through Charlemagne's sons, and then you start fragmenting. Whereas Germany is a lot more confusing.

 

[aronnax]

It's a cheap, short atlas of mostly-European history. In the back of mine, there is a political flow chart remarkably like yours, except it looks more artsy.

No, it definitely was a state, with federal judicial, fiscal, and military organizations, an elective rulership, and the works. Charles V was listened to, until people revolted against him - and if you think people don't revolt within states, you're delusional. Even if you decide arbitrarily that the HRE in even the late medieval period is somehow less of a state than the highly decentralized French kingdom of around the same period or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, you're still ignoring its origins. The Ottonian and Salian Empires, probably up to the Interregnum, certainly fit any criteria for inclusion as relatively centralized territorial agglomerations.

In that case, how would YOU list the vassal states of Bavaria, Saxony etc? The Duchies of Bavaria, Wuttermburg were highly indepedent, they may be in the HRE but not ruled by it. Bavaria, especially, after Frankish conquest, it was remade an independent Duchy, not intergrated into HRE. Please, tell me, how would you list it?

Rhenish Palatinate (which did also belong to Bavaria for a time), fool.

No need for names... Its mean and hurts my fragile soul...

Brandenburg and Prussia also both controlled extensive territories in the Rhineland even before the Congress of Vienna, and the Habsburgs had the Vorlande. Why Bavaria is arbitrarily included as opposed to Baden, Wurttemberg,

1) Wurttemberg and Baden are included. *Points at screen

Your criteria is base more on geographic succession, mine is more political. Britian controlling Egypt does not make the UK a successor of Ottoman Egypt. I focus on the core areas (or areas of modern day borders) as well as political succession of state. According to your logic, Britian is a successor of HRE, because it held Hannover. Im going by "the succession of state" not "succesion of geographic piece"

Odoacer didn't call himself a king, for starters, he was a patrician. Officially, he ruled as a viceroy of Zeno. Theoderic was the first Gothic King. So: Western Empire => Viceroyalty of the Eastern Empire => Gothic Kingdom of Italy => Eastern Empire => Exarchate of Ravenna, Theme of Sicily, Lombard Duchy of Benevento, Lombard Kingdom, you get the idea, then a lot of those unite into the Carolingian kingdom of Italy, then you go through Charlemagne's sons, and then you start fragmenting. Whereas Germany is a lot more confusing.

Odacer's Kingdom was independent from Eastern Roman rule in all but name and while he did not title himself "King of Italy" he adopted the title "Rex". A King, rules a Kingdom.
http://www.nndb.com/people/033/000102724/ - somewhere there, it states he was crowned King.

And again, your chart is again based on Geographic succession. The Exarchate of Ravenna and Theme of Sicily, while both are successors of the Western Roman Empire and both are predecessors of the Italian Republic, are not successors/precessors of each other. They dont even rule the same place. (Unless you consider the whole of the Italian peninsula a place)

Take a look at my charts again. I don't base succession on what stood on point X. I base them on states. I mean, the whole of Poland moved from the East to the West and back to the East again.

 

[Dachs]

In that case, how would YOU list the vassal states of Bavaria, Saxony etc? The Duchies of Bavaria, Wuttermburg were highly indepedent, they may be in the HRE but not ruled by it. Bavaria, especially, after Frankish conquest, it was remade an independent Duchy, not intergrated into HRE. Please, tell me, how would you list it?

Dunno. I'm not creative or artsy.

No need for names... Its mean and hurts my fragile soul...

Sorry mang. Kiss and make up?

1) Wurttemberg and Baden are included. *Points at screen

But not their predecessor organizations...well, not really anyhow.

Your criteria is base more on geographic succession, mine is more political. Britian controlling Egypt does not make the UK a successor of Ottoman Egypt. I focus on the core areas (or areas of modern day borders) as well as political succession of state. According to your logic, Britian is a successor of HRE, because it held Hannover. Im going by "the succession of state" not "succesion of geographic piece"

But by the succession of state organizations through the entity of East Francia, the Ottonian HRE - and therefore all HREs - was a 'successor state' by your 'political' definition of the Carolingian Empire and therefore the other Frankish states.
Odacer's Kingdom was independent from Eastern Roman rule in all but name and while he did not title himself "King of Italy" he adopted the title "Rex". A King, rules a Kingdom.

http://www.nndb.com/people/033/000102724/ - somewhere there, it states he was crowned King.

Kinda like the whole 'king in Prussia' thing as opposed to the king of Prussia - he was not king of Italy, but only king of the Herulians and Rugians and so forth. And it confirms that in your article.

And again, your chart is again based on Geographic succession. The Exarchate of Ravenna and Theme of Sicily, while both are successors of the Western Roman Empire and both are predecessors of the Italian Republic, are not successors/precessors of each other. They dont even rule the same place. (Unless you consider the whole of the Italian peninsula a place)

Take a look at my charts again. I don't base succession on what stood on point X. I base them on states. I mean, the whole of Poland moved from the East to the West and back to the East again.

So what do you do when the state is destroyed, hmm? Going by your weird system, the Western Roman Empire would have no successor states - just the Eastern Roman Empire, because it was the only political successor state to the West. The point in referring to Themes and so forth was to indicate that the Byzantine thread in Italy could continue at the same time as the Lombard one, anyhow...

 

[aronnax]

Dunno. I'm not creative or artsy.

Well then Im not sure how to include HRE.

Sorry mang. Kiss and make up?

And my friends said I dont deserve you...

But by the succession of state organizations through the entity of East Francia, the Ottonian HRE - and therefore all HREs - was a 'successor state' by your 'political' definition of the Carolingian Empire and therefore the other Frankish states.

Okay, just now I talked myself into a trap, you were right, at least before 1350s, HRE had quite some sway and did behave like a country. But its still not easy for me to include it in. I can't include it in half way, than stopped including it because after 1648, it became irrelevant. And there is the whole issue of how I would include it...

Carolingian, Burgundian, Merovingian - Franks, there are easier for me to include. The Italy-San Marino-Vatican chart have Frankish rule included or at least mentioned. After a bit of reading your points began to made more sense and I included it. But HRE Member states will merely be denoted by a little dot at the top. The fractionalisation of HRE was quick and I have trouble defining what is actually HRE Direct control. The only instance I can pick out was when Babarossa HRE invaded Italy. I called it Imperial Domain.

Kinda like the whole 'king in Prussia' thing as opposed to the king of Prussia - he was not king of Italy, but only king of the Herulians and Rugians and so forth. And it confirms that in your article.

Yes, like the King of/in Prussia. Odacer had an overlord but an overlord in name.
Still King. And independent enough in my book to be treated as a seperate state from E. Rome Emp.

So what do you do when the state is destroyed, hmm? Going by your weird system, the Western Roman Empire would have no successor states - just the Eastern Roman Empire, because it was the only political successor state to the West. The point in referring to Themes and so forth was to indicate that the Byzantine thread in Italy could continue at the same time as the Lombard one, anyhow...

I have actually finished linking Italy to the Roman Empire, take a look. Try looking from Italy to Rome rather than Rome to Italy. Don't get me wrong, geographic succession does count a bit. But its still mostly Political succession. When Rome was destroyed, Odacer occupied it, mixed in its Germanic roots but kept a lot of Roman tradition. His Kingdom was a political successor it. And when the Lombards came in, the same thing, took some government traditions replaced many. And so on with the Carolingians and the various stem duchies that split from it. Its foolish to say that Italy is a successor of Rome. But Italy is a successor to a successor to a ... ... successor of Rome. The link makes much sense. Take a look.

 

[aronnax]

Italy, Vatican City and San Marino to Rome

Okay, because of some stupid file rule, the picture is too big for Imageshack, So i broke it up into three bits. If someone can join them together with paint and then upload the full thing, give me the code so I every one can see it whole rather than separated.