The Holy Roman Empire

[Pellaken]

the title was created as such to tick off AoA, who was expecting to open this and say "no mroe VS threads!" sorry
Don't repeat this "joke"
AoA

(for those that havent figured it out by yet, the 2 are the same!. germany in the medievil times, AKA, 1500's etc)

so, what are your opinions on the HRE? someone was once quoted as saying "it's netier holy, nor roman, nor an empire"
your thoughts?

personally, I think it was a very intergral part of the history of europe. even if not a country.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Pellaken
(for those that havent figured it out by yet, the 2 are the same!. germany in the medievil times, AKA, 1500's etc)

Until now I was pretty sure I had figured it out, but with different results
The Holy Roman Empire is the one considered to be the FIRST Reich, not the Second. The Second is the one founded by Bismarck (1871-1918). Which is supposed to be the first in your view?

And of course it was an integral part of Europe, therefore also of it's history.
Considering the quote:
Holy is a thing everyone has to decide on himself, I don't believe in anything holy.
It was not Roman could be explained as it was basically a German(ic) Empire.
If it was an empire is difficult to tell, how do you define an empire?

 

[History_Buff]

I agree that they were not much of an Empire, not Roman, and well. . . Holy is up to whoever reads. But they are by no means the same people as the Germans. Germany as we know it was founded by the Prussians, who are actually more Polish than German. They reunited the Area known as Germany under Van Bismarcks real politic and went from there.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by History Buff
But they are by no means the same people as the Germans. Germany as we know it was founded by the Prussians, who are actually more Polish than German. They reunited the Area known as Germany under Van Bismarcks real politic and went from there.

I don't really get your point. Who is they?
It's true that the Second Reich was more or less founded by Bismarck/Prussia. But to say that the Prussians were more Polish than German is nonsense. Prussia was one of the German states, it's by far biggest ethnic group were Germans, as was it's whole leadership (not only the Kings). Like in most European countries there were ethnic minorities, in Prussia's case mainly Slavs and Jews.
You said yourself they reunited Germany. And that's it, they reunited the Empire (German: "Reich"). Therefore the Holy Roman Empire is the same as the "First Reich".

 

[Damien]

Germans living on the east side of the Elbe(including Berlin,Rostock etc) stem from slavic tribes but they were assimilated;they took the culture n the language of the germanic tribes in the 10th century.Only the Wends still speak a slavic language.
Anyway,in any country,the settling is not important,the culture is.
Romans were actually Celts(sabeans,ombrians n later etruscs) but they took the language n the culture of the latins(a minority).
Frankic tribes took the culture n the language of the gallo-romans;that's why french is not a germanic language but a latin one.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The quote comes from Napoleon, I believe.
One has long been interested in the Holy Roman Empire, particularly its medieval days.
Originally coined when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor.

The title just has a nice ring to it. I would like a go at it.

It was a disparate union, and a union only effectively in name, and property of the Hapsburgs for many a year.

 

[Hitro]

Damien, you're right about the importance of culture. A main thing also often overseen is the absence of nationalism before (roughly) the 18th century. So cultural and religious differences were often much more important than ethnic differences. Take the 30 year war as an example.
But to say the Prussians were not Germans is nonsense anyway. Prussia in the 19th century was a German state, nothing else. It was part (and even one of the leaders) of the "Deutscher Bund" (German Federation) at that time. After the 1866 war with Austria Prussia became the hegemonial power in Germany leading to the Second Empire, which now was based on nationalism.
In fact for many decades (maybe even until today) many things considered to be "German" were (are) originally Prussian, for example militarism.
Anyway, back to the Holy Roman Empire. As far as I know the period from 962-1806 is considered to be the Holy Roman Empire in it's closer sense. It was 'founded' by the German king Otto and the Pope (I think John XII). Its predecessor was Charlemagnes(Charles the Great's) "Roman Empire" from 800-925. Some see the whole period from 800-1806 as one, for example those who argumented in favour of another "Thousand Year Empire"

 

[elfstorm]

I think it was Descartes who said the HRE was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

I'm not certain, other people at various times since have certainly reused it; not least one of my History lecturers on the very subject.

I'm pretty sure he attributed it to Descartes though.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by elfstorm
I think it was Descartes who said the HRE was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

I'm not certain, other people at various times since have certainly reused it; not least one of my History lecturers on the very subject.

I'm pretty sure he attributed it to Descartes though.

It was Voltaire who said it.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

Originally posted by Damien
Anyway,in any country,the settling is not important,the culture is.
Romans were actually Celts(sabeans,ombrians n later etruscs) but they took the language n the culture of the latins(a minority).

Though I agree with you in your main argument: What obscureknowledge leads you to the opinion that sabeans, umbrians or etruscans were Celts?
Etruscan language is not even indo-european, sabeans and umbrians spoke "italic" languages AFAIK, and the Celts came much later (early 4th cent.BC)

 

[elfstorm]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
It was Voltaire who said it.

Yeah your right.

Actually now it seems really obvious. We were given that quote during a lecture on the enlightenment and, of course, Decartes wasn't from that period.

Ah well, they're both french, I just got a little mixed up