Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

"Coat of Arms of Maximilian II"

First of all, it's not the coat of arms of an Emperor, it's what's referred to as a Reichsquaternionadler: a heraldic representation of the Empire and its components. I've changed the heading to "Collective Coat of Arms, 1510": can anyone think of a better heading? Second of all, it dates from 1510, in the reign of Maximilian I, NOT Max II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schreibergasse (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism?

The offical religion of the HRE was catholicism until the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, where princes could pick the religion of there realm(s) (Catholicism OR Lutheranism).. the Peace of Westphalia let those princes Choose Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism as the offical religion of their realm, yet the info box says "cathoilicism" I'll change it until someone says otherwise. --Hotshotesquire (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation

The name of the Holy Roman Empire in German publications is "Heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation". I´m from Germany, I really don´t know how to translate this in English. Can somebody help me? We should write it in the text.

--91.15.202.103 16:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is called the Holy Roman Empire of the german Nation, very easy. And you really should change it, the sama for franch. Actually even in English it is "Holy Roman Empire of the german Nation". Why are you hiding that?

I´m not living in an english-speaking country, I live in Germany. I don´t konw that in English the Empire was also called "of the german Nation". I will change it, too. Oh, an edit-conflict with the same aim :D --91.15.240.118 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a moment, the Holy Roman Empire was called after Rome (hardly a German city). Only much later it became dominantly German. This article is treating its full existence, so the "of the German nation" should not be added (or a recent academically respectable (not all school books may qualify) historical reference has to be provided that the Deutscher Nation was indeed used from its orgiins onwards. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just go and look at what the other countries are writing. Hardly anyone calls ist Holly Roman Empire, anyohne refers to it as Holly Roman Empire of the GERMAN NATION!. Even France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.160.123 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In English it is commonly, and almost always, called simply the Holy Roman Empire. The full title only dates from the 15th century, and in any case,is in the article.But remember, HRE is a concept that includes much more than Germany.--Gazzster (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

European Union

The section about the EU being a possible successor state of the Empire is interesting, but frustratingly unsourced.It seems odd that anyone could seriously consider appointing electors to elect an Emperor Karl VIII. Could we have a citation? And perhaps this odd suggestion needs to be made into a footnote.--Gazzster 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence, if you look through the history you'll see it was added by an anonymous editor who only ever put that one thing into Wikipedia. It's probably just vandalism/joking, I would also suggest deleting the rest of that section as it was also added by that editor, and is thus very suspicious. A better thing to do would be to simply mention that there is a living heir (or a claimant) to the Austrian throne somewhere in the article, and that this person might also claim to by Holy Roman Emperor (although the entire idea is obviously pretty ludicrous). --Hibernian 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, only the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne could not claim imperial status, since the HRE was elective.The entire section might be deleted without qualification.Good research!--Gazzster 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

critics from germany

Hello, I'm the author of the featured article in german WP, and i have some remarks about this article here in english WP.

• The picture under "governement" shows not the Organizational structure of the Holy Roman Empire, but this is a picture of w:de:Quaterionen der Reichsverfassung. This was popular model of how the empire is working, but have nothing or not so much to do with reality.
• Until 1508, the newly-elected king then travelled to Rome to be crowned Emperor by the Pope. is very simplified. Some of the roman kings were never emperor and crowned by pope (e.g. Rudolf I.).
• There are more then three kinds of imperial estate. There were also: Reichsgrafen (Count of the empire), Reichsritter (Imperial Knights) and Reichsdörfer (Imperial Villages). The last two estates had never seats in reichtag. But the the only authority of these was also the emperor.
• rising to several hundred at the time of the Peace of Westphalia it's not true. The number of territories after Peace of Westphalia was not increased. Please have a look on german Wikisource: s:de:Hernach volgend die zehen Krayß. It's a List of imperial estates of the 16. century. The number of this is the nearly the number in later centurys. We have also an List of 1422 and there is already the number of 350 estates, like after peace of Westphalia.
• The long decline' modern german historiography don't say that the end beguns after thirty years war, after this the emperor Leopold I. could stabilize the empire. The begin of the will be now later in middle of 18. century. Please read also the citation of the german historiography Georg Schmidt (i hope you can read a little bit german):

Weder wurde der Reichsverband zur Erstarrung verdammt noch gesprengt – das sind lange Zeit inbrünstig gehegte Forschungsmythen. Nüchtern betrachtet, verliert der Westfälische Frieden, dieses angebliche nationale Unglück, viel von seinem Schrecken, aber auch viel von seinem vermeintlich epochalen Charakter. Dass er Reichsidee und Kaisertum zerstört habe, das ist das krasseste aller kursierenden Fehlurteile über den Westfälischen Frieden

• After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which gave the territories almost complete sovereignty This is also not more the meaning of modern history. The sovereignty in peace of Westphalia was not new, this was only first time written down. The rights of estates was the same as before the war. It could simply shown in text of the peace. See also another citation of Georg Schmidt:

Der Frieden hat weder die staatliche Zersplitterung noch den fürstlichen Absolutismus hervorgebracht. […] Der Friede betonte die ständische Freiheit, machte aus den Ständen aber keine souveränen Staaten. I hope i could you helb something. Please contact me if you have any questions. And please excuse my terrible english. Greetings --Finanzer 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Finanzer for his contribution. I am not as expert in German history, but I would like to make a comment about a couple of points: a) Regarding Westphalia and the concept of sovereignty- we ought to be careful how we, in the 21st century, describe concepts of sovereignty. We tend to describe a sovereign nation as one whose head does not have a higher. This was clearly not the case in Germany after Westphalia, for the Holy Roman Emperor had not renounced his sovereignty. And there were still some functions, even until 1806, that the emperor and the Reichstag alone could fulfil for the constituent entities. It might be more accurate to say that the autonomy of the constituents of the Empire was recognised in law at Westphalia. b) About the concept of the 'decline' of the Holy Roman Empire. As Finanzer implies, we ought to be careful about assigning dates to mark the 'decline' of states. Westphalia was, after all, simply a legal ratification of a state of affairs that had existed from before the Reformation. And the Empire was still powerful enough to repel the Turkish invasion in 1683 at Vienna. In fact, a case could be made for the stability of the Holy Roman Empire after Westphalia. After all, it lasted for another 150 years without any significant change in its constitution. Constituent states exercised their own foreign policy of course, but they were pursuing their own interests since before the Reformation. So there is no reason to suppose it might not have endured for another 150 years, had not Napoleon intervened. And though it remained legally defunct after 1806, it was considered necessary enough to be replaced by the German Confederation in 1815, and by the Second German Empire in 1871. In other words, the so-called 'Westphalian' concept of the sovereignty of the German states did not prevail.--Gazzster 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

This infobox is misleading. The Holy Roman Empire did not start in 800. That was the coronation of Charlemagne. Arguably the latter is the beginning of the title "Holy Roman Emperor" (though that's difficult to accept, as the title did not become fossilized like this for centuries), but not of the state. The start of the HRE is either the first king of the East Franks/Germans or the coronation of Otto I as Emperor. The bottom line should be that the date 800 can be and is reasonably disputed, so should not be represented simply in this manner. 129.215.149.97 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A Kingdom that didn’t exist

This article is getting worse and worse. Why mention a Kingdom of Germany (linked with a very bad article) right at the beginning, which didn’t exist (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Germany#It_didn.27t_exist). And there are no emperors from the Kingdom of Germany, only Holy roman emperors. I have already tried to change the introduction, but someone is changing it back. mv, 18.07.2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.93.2 (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2007

The Holy Roman Empire was a strange institution. The following extract from the Encyclopedia Brittanica [[1]] might serve to clarify things:

German Heiliges Römisches Reich , Latin Sacrum Romanum Imperium the varying complex of lands in western and central Europe ruled over first by Frankish and then by German kings for 10 centuries, from Charlemagne's coronation in 800 until the renunciation of the imperial title in 1806.. ….

Nature of the empire

The precise term Sacrum Romanum Imperium dates only from 1254, though the term Holy Empire reaches back to 1157, and the term Roman Empire was used from 1034 to denote the lands under Conrad II's rule. The term Roman emperor is older, dating from Otto II (died 983). This title, however, was not used by Otto II's predecessors, from Charlemagne (or Charles I) to Otto I, who simply employed the phrase imperator augustus (“august emperor”) without any territorial adjunct. The first title that Charlemagne is known to have used, immediately after his coronation in 800, is “Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.” This clumsy formula, however, was soon discarded. These questions about terms reveal some of the problems involved in the nature and early history of the empire. It can be regarded as a political institution, or approached from the point of view of political theory, or treated in the context of the history of Christendom as the secular counterpart of a world religion. The history of the empire is also not to be confused or identified with the history of its constituent kingdoms, Germany and Italy, though clearly they are interrelated. The constituent territories retained their identity; the emperors, in addition to the imperial crown, also wore the crowns of their kingdoms.

So originally, Charlemagne seems to have been regarded as the successor of the Western Roman Emperor. He was also regarded as the protector of the Western Church and temporal lord of most Western Christians. No particular territory however appears to have attached to the title Emperor. The emperor was regarded as some sort of sovereign head of all Western (Roman Catholic) Christians. This was how the Roman Catholic Church regarded the office. (In the Good Friday Prayers of the RCC liturgy, the prayer for ‘Our most Christian Emperor..’ occurs immediately below the prayers for the Pope and clergy – lesser princes are not mentioned in the prayers). It was not until Otto I that the empire came to be associated with a particular territory, or rather complex of territories. It is true that the Kingdom of Germany came to be most commonly associated with the Empire, but the Kingdoms of Italy, Arles, Poland, Sicily, Naples, etc, also came under its auspices. And of course, from the 15th century it was identified with Germany as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. But the truth of the nature of the Empire was always nebulous: for example, was England, or France, or Spain, technically part of the Holy Roman Empire? After all, the emperor was supposed to be the temporal head of all Western Christians. And when Henry VIII broke from Rome, he declared England to be an ‘empire’. In other words, he was declaring independence from Western Christendom governed by pope and emperor.--Gazzster 04:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see this discussion. I have changed the infobox to begin with Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, so as not to do violence to the version of history reflected in other articles. The article Holy Roman Emperor needs attention, as it gives a sequence of rulers going back to Charlemagne. The infobox now says the empire began in the "10th century" rather than in a precise year. Also added Barbarossa, Max I, and a few others to the list of emperors. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That the empire dates back to Otto's coronation in 962 is not contradictory with the fact that the title of emperor dates back to Charlemagne in 800. The state Charlemagne ruled was not the Holy Roman Empire, but he was certainly the first Holy Roman Emperor. john k 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The article does make a distinction between the H.R.E. and the emperors. But I wonder if it would be better to use the term "Romano-German emperor," as at least some historians do, and reserve the title "Holy Roman Emperor" for those who actually had that title bestowed on them. Maybe I should start a thread at Talk:Holy Roman Emperor. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Romano-German Emperor" is ever used in English. Beyond that "Holy Roman Emperor" isn't a title which was actually bestowed on anyone, as far as I'm aware. The term "Holy Roman Empire" itself appeared only in the 15th century. Using contemporary terms simply won't work, so we have to go with the anachronism, I think. john k 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry was declaring independence from the pope. The independence of England from the Emperor, if it ever had to be established, had been so a long long time ago. I can't think of any instance where the Emperor was able to claim any kind of practical political hegemony over England. john k 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Im also happy to see this discussion moving with such a free and intelligent exchange of ideas. I agree, john k; the emperor never exercised authority in England. But in political theory, he had precedence over every other prince of Western Christendom, including the King of England. But because of the nebulous nature of the HRE, this preeminence rarely translated to the exercise of real power. Nevertheless Henry VIII needed to deny even the theory of the HRE in order to secure independence from Rome. To use an analogy which isnt perfect (because no analogy ever is): the authority of the UN, which is like the Holy Roman Empire of today, depends solely upon the willingness of its constituents to recognise it. Most states are members of it for international acceptance and prestige. So even though a state like, say, Britain, is not practically governed by the UN, it would still have to formally disavow it if it ever wanted to leave the community of nations. --Gazzster 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The theoretical universal authority of the Holy Roman Empire was already pretty clearly recognized as not applicable at least by the 11th century or so. France was the key player in that. The analogy to the UN doesn't really work. john k 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, vassalized Richard I of England "for England" as a condition of his release. The only effect I can see it having though was giving Richard as say in the election of the next emperor. Probably not what Henry intended. :D This talk btw is much better than the other one. 129.215.149.96 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII did make a serious attempt to have himself elected Holy Roman Emperor, which he couldn't have done had not England been considered a theoretical constituent of the Empire. About the vassalisation of Richard I, I don't think that really demonstrates anything. Vassalage is to a person, not to an institution. In fact, the Middle Ages did not have a concept of allegiance to an institution, but rather, to persons. THat may explain why it is contentious to tie the office of Holy Roman Emperor to a specific territory.--Gazzster 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Officially the “Kingdom of Germany“ was called Regnum Francorum orientalium till the beginning of the 12th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Francia. From the 11th century, East Francia became also known as Regnum Teutonic(or)um (Kingdom of the Germans (tribes)). To translate that unofficial name with “Kingdom of Germany” is weak enough (and in my opinion wrong, that’s why I wrote, it doesn’t exist), but how can the Holy Roman Empire, which started in the 10th century according to this article, be based on a name of a kingdom, which was also (mostly unofficial) used in the 11th/12th century (first time mentioned 10th century). Officially the kingdom that is meant in the article is called Kingdom of the East Franks. That was my point. mv, 20.07.2007

"This talk btw is much better than the other one." That must be because this one is about how much power the Emperor had over England and about the Emperor's correct title, not about the correct name of East Francia. --Tlatosmd 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it went off track a bit, but hey, it was discussed in the context of whether Germany = Holy Roman Empire. I think it was useful. OK, if you want us to address your point; ie, there was no such thing as the Kingdom of Germany:

titles and names for states obviously change throughout history. For the Frankish sovereigns, the Germans or Teutons were subject peoples and so they would not call themselves Kings of Germany. However we know there was a time when the peoples of what was East Francia began to refer themselves as one nation, Germany. Now when exactly this happened is uncertain. In truth it was probably a very gradual, if not nebulous idea. I dont see a problem with using the name 'Kingdom of Germany' for convenience. After all, almost every English historical text on the period ive seen uses it. We can be terribly pedantic about this.--Gazzster 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if so, let's rather settle on pronouncing the difference between legitimate and official contemporary names and titles on the one hand and modern catchphrases taken up for mere convenience on the other, for authenticity's sake. --Tlatosmd 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's my point: because there were never clear changes to territorial and political boundaries, or even ideological ones, during the Middle Ages, it is impossible to mark the date when 'King of the Eastern Franks' became 'King of the Germans'. In fact there were many titles used concurrently and interchangeably at various points in Germanic history. So what is the crime in using a name off convenience, 'Kingdom of Germany'? In fact, it is very useful, at least in an English Language encyclopedia, to do so. It's like saying 'Weimar Republic' to label Germany between the Wars. But a German will tell you no such name exists. It is a term of convenience for English speakers.--Gazzster 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Germans do in most cases refer to that period as "Weimar Republic" ("Weimarer Republik") though it has never been the official term. "Kingdom of Germany" and "King of the Germans" in its latin version at least were official titles of the emperors/kings. The only strange thing about it is that the "King of the Germans" was de facto king of the HRE and didn't actually need the emperor's title tu rule over all of the empire. Maybe we shouldn't read "regnum teutonicum" as souvereign kingdom but as territory of German-reigned or German-speaking kingdoms and duchies within the empire.--MacX85 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your knowledge of German nomenclature. But yes, as you say, 'Weimar Republic' is not an official name; it is a term of convenience. Another example: Byzantine Empire. The lands of the Greek Basileus were called no such thing. The inhabitants referred to themselves as 'Romans' and called their nation the Roman Empire. Nevertheless we find it useful to use the term 'Byzantine' for convenience. Interpreting Regnum Teutonicum as you suggest has some problems: in the Middle Ages they did not have a concept of nationhood in the West. Rather they believed a state was defined by the allegiance of a particular body of people or peoples to a person. So Germany would not be defined as a mass of people speaking the German Language, but rather as the body of the people owing fealty to the person who called himself King, or Emperor, of Germany. And these might include non-German speaking peoples, such as the Czechs and other Slavs, French, Flemish, Dutch and Italian.I would suggest that Kingdom of Germany, while not necessarily accurate, is useful to distinguish central Europe as a political entity from the Kingdom of France.--Gazzster 13:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Western Europeans did have ideas of "nationhood" (both ethnicity and state allegiance), which could be defined in a whole range of ways. Also, "Dutch" and Flemings (though less so, because many of them were controlled by France) were Germans (Dutch, unlike Franconian, Frisian and Fleming, didn't exist as a concept so far as I know in the Middle Ages); Germans in the Middle Ages identified themselves both from language continuum and from political allegiance, though regional identities were strong , stronger than in, say, England, initially at least I wouldn't say they were any stronger than in France. Of course, elites such as imperial officials, churchman and travelling poets, and settlers in Slavic or Baltic territories, clearly had stronger sense of Germanness than Saxon peasants who had their crops burned by Swabians campaigning on behalf of royal authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Intro

Let's not lose sight of our audience. The typical English-language encyclopedia reader will probably be unaware of several basic facts about the H.R.E., e.g., that most of its subjects were Germans, yet it was not "Germany," and in fact there was no "Germany" until 1871. That the H.R.E. lasted for over 900 years, and almost everything about its governance, structure, etc. changed during that long span. The emperor was crowned by the pope (when he was not at war with or excommunicated by the pope). Our readers, many of them, will be startled by the idea of a pope who went to war. Also, this emperor was elected by German nobles -- but also, the crown was bestowed de facto on a Habsburg, eventually. (Many readers will have learned in school to spell it "Hapsburg," and will be confused.) The scope of the emperor's authority changed drastically, and neighboring states were not exactly living in dread of conquest by the Holy Roman emperor, at least not by about 1500. When Voltaire made his famous quip, it was entirely apt -- but it does not apply at all to the medieval period. In other words, this is not a simple story, and we must tell it to people who may know nothing about the historical context and are not used to thinking in terms of historical change over nine centuries. (Especially us Americans, who think the 1930s are ancient history. <grin>) I am going to rewrite the first paragraph or two, borrowing a few ideas from the German Wikipedia article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like it. Cool. --Gazzster 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact there was no "Germany" until 1871. Not true. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I should have said there was no nation-state of Germany until then (which is what most readers think of when they hear the word "Germany"). In the intro I referred to the Kingdom of the East Franks in light of the discussion above. It is the contemporary (medieval) name for what historians call the Kingdom of Germany. Perhaps we should use both terms on 1st reference. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "nation-state"; the meaning of the latter can be so vague that you could count KoG as a nation-state, or so specific that either almost no country has ever been a nation-state or only modern states can be nation-states, in which case the point is mute. Actually, Kingdom of the Germans, Kingdom of Germany or German kingdom are infinitely more common terms in the "medieval" period (the term you used) than Kingdom of the East Franks; the only benefit I can see of the latter term is that it clearly shows a perceived link between Germany and the Frankish realm, while the only disadvantage of the former term is lack of formal use. In relation to the sentence, Otto I's Kingdom was not credibly Eastern Francia since Francia didn't exist anymore, and in German use of the time the Franks are only one of the ducal peoples clearly now, because of the disappearance of the German language from the aristocracy of "Western Francia", identifiable as Germans. East Franks is though used in the time by at least one source, so you can't hold my objections on this point too seriously. My main objection would be that Germany was an elected monarchy with a Saxon king, so its continuation with Francia, hence East Francia, ought not to be overstressed, esp. as sources of Otto's time prefer to call Otto's territory (as opposed to kingship) Germany to eastern Francia (I'd question whether anyone ever intended East Francia to be meant rather than eastern Francia btw). Adding "or" would prolly be a nice uncotroversial solution rather than deleting either, so I'll do that and you can tell me what you think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article

I think this article should actually be rewritten. I find it confusing, and not ever insightful.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 05:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Only put the Confederation of the Rhine as a successor, not Prussia, Austria, Hannover, etc. etc.

Right now, Prussia and Austria are seen as successors to the Holy Roman Empire, technically they did gain full sovereignty over the lands, but so did many other German states. Plus the pages for the Kingdom of Prussia and Austrian Empire do not display the Holy Roman Empire as a predaccessor. The Holy Roman Empire was for a large part of its existance, a German confederation, rather than an empire. I think only the Confederation of the Rhine should be displayed as its successor, as this was the unified, French client state which did definately replace it. User:R-41

German Titel

Someone already mentioned it, so I included it in the article: the official term under which the Holy Roman Empire is known in German, that is used by historians and taught in school, is "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation" - Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. I was told that this addendum is totally uncommon in the English usage, but for the German title I think it should be added, seeing how that is the name used. --HolgerPollmann 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true the the addendum "Deutscher Nation" is very commonly used in Germany to refer to the HRE (in its late period mostly) but in official documents it was hardly used, if I'm not mistaken only for 2 decades in the 16th century. "Heiliges Römisches Reich" should be enough. --MacX85 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Army of the HRE? Was it known as the "Imperial Army"?

The article makes no mention of the military of the HRE. The page Imperial Army lists the military of the HRE as an example of an army that was known as the "Imperial Army", but this page makes no mention of this fact. Could someone check up on this and rectify this problem? Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think treating the army of the Holy Roman Empire is going to be difficult. If the HRE has a rather strange, convoluted and difficult history, then the history of the army is going to be also. When, if ever (I honestly don't know) did the HRE have a standing army marching under its own insignia and with its own uniform? If we go back to the beginning, the army of the empire would be the Frankish army. In medieval times it would be a typical feudal army called when it was required. When the empire began to decentralise in the High Middle Ages, local rulers raised private armies that could, if they agreed, be placed under the personal banner of the Emperor. Were the armies of say, Prussia, the Habsburg dominions, Bavaria, etc, technically armies of the Holy Roman Empire?I'll put my hand up to do some research on this. --Gazzster 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the early modern period (i.e., c. 1500-1806) is that when the Diet declared war on someone, it could then raise troops from the various princes, who would come under the military authority of the Emperor while also retaining their distinct characters as units coming from various princes. Each prince had a certain quota that he had to fill in contributions to the Imperial army. Normally, for the larger princes, these quotas were considerably less than the full military capacity of the state. For instance, during the War of the First Coalition, the Bavarians and other princes sent only the nominal required contribution to the Imperial war effort. So, in war time, there was an imperial army which was distinct from the armies the Emperors raised from their own personal territory. It was not however a standing army which existed during peacetime, and essentially constituted a diverse force assembled from the princes' individual armies. It could be said to resemble UN peacekeeping forces, I think, more than it resembled a modern day national army. "Imperial Army," though, was also used as a term for the armies of the Emperor - i.e., the armies raised from the Austrian Habsburgs' hereditary lands (including Hungarian, etc., troops that weren't from the Holy Roman Empire at all). Does that clarify things? john k 03:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. Do you have a source we can cite?--Gazzster 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...I'm terrible about having sources we can cite. I'd suggest James Sheehan's History of Germany 1770-1866 as a possible source - it has some discussion of the constitutional structure of the HRE. john k 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Roman Empire roots

"Although the medieval emperor claimed to carry on the traditions of the ancient Roman Empire, most of the empire's subjects were Germans." This sentence is not clear. Is there an opposition? This needs to be clarified. 193.132.242.1 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

The article about Holy Roman Empire is based on some at least inaccurate information. There is continuous critics about the article Kingdom of Germany which did not exist until 1871 but even it existed it was not what HRE was. Also the term first reich', please read the article German Empire specifically German_Empire#Name. Holy Roman Empire was not a monarchy it was a conglomerate of various lands and countries across the medieval Europe based mainly on the clerical principles and as a counterbalance against France on the west and Turkey on the east. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about the name Kingdom of Germany (see above). Those involved tended to agree that there was no Kingdom of Germany, but that the term could be used as a term of convenience. Most standard English texts also use the term. While the title Emperor was created by the papacy('based..on clerical principles') the state was not. It was the state of the Saxon kings. It began not as a 'conglomerate' but as a single powerful state. A monarchy is state (or group of states) ruled by a monarch. The HRE certainly fits.--Gazzster 12:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually not exactly. Monarchy is a state with a staff of officials and ruled by the king, but HRE was a conglomerate of indepdendent states whose kings elected the emperor. I disagree with the term Kingdom of Germany as the main base for HRE there is a little step only to put equality between HRE and Germany which is apparently not true. What exactly do you mean by Most standard English texts, give some examples, references and links. HRE was never a single powerful state that is historical fact. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Salzburg Annals (c.919) refers to the ‘Kingdom of the Germans’. The popes often referred to the ‘King of the Teutons’, though the emperor himself only did so for diplomatic reasons. The term ‘Kingdom of Germany’ (Regnum Germaniae) began to be used regularly in German sources from the fourteenth century. Other Europeans rulers tended to refer to the Kingdom of Germany to avoid acknowledging the imperial claims to universal sovereignty; this is perhaps where the English custom of talking about the Kingdom of Germany comes from.

'The kingdom of Germany emerged in the late 9th and early 10th centuries as the successor to the kingdom of the East Franks, which had been formed when the Carolingian empire was partitioned under the Treaty of Verdun in 843, although the term "Germany" or "Deutschland" was not widely used before the 16th century[1]. The territory had been part of the Frankish empire founded in 800 by Emperor Charles I "Charlemagne" and ruled by his descendants until their extinction in the male line in 911. The Franks had been only one of a number of tribes living in the area now identified as Germany. The others included the Saxons, Frisians, Thuringians, Swabians and Bavarians.‘[[2]]

‘Henry I, also known as Henry the Fowler (in German, Henrik or Heinrich der Vogler) was the founder of the Saxon dynasty of kings and emperors in Germany. Although he never took the title "Emperor" (his son Otto was the first to revive the title centuries after the Carolingians), future emperors would reckon the numbering of "Henrys" from his reign. How he got his nickname is uncertain; one story has it that he was called "fowler" because he was setting bird snares when informed of his election as king, but that is probably a myth’ [[3]]

A monarch is any crowned sovereign head of state.The emperor was crowned. He was a head of state. He was a sovereign. Therefore he was a monarch. The only Kings in the HRE were the King of the Romans (the Emperor), the King of Bohemia and the King of Prussia. Though in the latter case the King of Prussia was only Elector of Brandenburg within the Empire, Prussia being outside its jurisdiction. The various electorates, duchies, counties, free cities and bishoprics of the empire were not independent states. They acted as such during the last few centuries of the Empire, yes, but they still owed, (and did not renounce) obedience to the Empire. The HRE was never a powerful unitary state? The Empire of Charlemagne was the unrivalled master of Western Europe.The early mediaval Empire, centred in Germany,ruled northern Italy, held Poland and other states in vassalage, and appointed popes (and later challenged their authority). Otto the Great centralised the Empire to make it a powerful state. Why do the say the Empire was never powerful?--Gazzster 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you can use Kingdom of Germany in reference to HRE. There is a significant difference between king and emperor. King rules monarchy only but the emperor rules monarchies. HRE was not a state, in fact HRE, since Golden Bull of Sicily, lost many of its powers. Its states were sovereign monarchies. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're just restating your position, not really addressing my points. I have already explained that 'Kingdom of Germany' was in use from medieval times, and that the emperor himself used it occasionally. I have demonstrated how the term is used in English: that is what you asked for. A king rules a kingdom; an emperor rules an empire. Both an empire and a kingdom are monarchies. See monarch.And by your reasoning, we cannot call the rulers within the Empire 'kings'. As I have said, the only prince who was a king in the Empire was the King of Bohemia. So you would have to concede that the only principality that could call itself a 'monarchy' was Bohemia. That the Empire lost 'many of its powers' does not mean it ceased to exist as a state and in fact presumes that it was once a unitary state. For something declines from something that was great. The constituent states of the Empire were not sovereign. Sovereign means having no superior. The princes of the Empire did have a superior, the Emperor. Their being princes in fact would have no meaning without the Empire. In the last centuries of the Empire the princes acted as if they were sovereign? Yes. But even if you want to call this later Empire 'not a monarchy', you have to concede that it degenerated from a unified state that was a monarchy both in name and fact. --Gazzster 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Otto When?

The first paragraph states:

Although the first Holy Roman Emperor was considered to be Charlemagne, crowned on 25 December 800, the continuous line of emperors began only with Otto the Great.

This isn't very helpful unless it also provides the date associated with Otto the Great (presumably 962?) rowley 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Fair comment. It also does not mention that the title was used a number of times between Charlemagne and Otto.--Gazzster 08:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, even using the term "Holy Roman Emperor" is an anachronism. "Roman Emperor" was how the emperors called themselves. Charlemagne is said to be the renovator of the Western Roman Empire, so you can say: he reestablished the title of the western Roman Emperor and this is what Otto I did once more claiming to continue this tradition. The state of East Francia was not the same as Charlemagne's Francia. The "Holy Roman Empire" is the name of East Francia with its own head of state becoming Roman Emperor first.--MacX85 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

german focus on the new rome's nature is a guelph and ghibbeline war of identity

the "emperors" always had to be crowned in rome by the pope as a legitimacy counterweight until the fall of constantinople removed the rightful claim of the byzantine inheritance of roman emperor. the "emperor"'s most important dominion title was king of italy, just like the english claim to france outranked the position of england itself under the same rule, as was done with scots and ireland. it's about precedence and social stratum; compare castile in spain to the rest, even as the male aragonese ruler ferdinand's union with isabel would dictate that his family was to rule (well, his branch of the same bigger family anyways). if the imperial title counted for anything, the focus of germany in the equation would be even smaller, since germania was two small extensions of roman gaul (which later became upper and lower lorraine, in principle) and not a significant entity with its own institutions, distinct enough to form any part of the "empire"'s identity except in the context of difference from the papal states, naples and sicily in the south of italy, preventing de facto rule by the king of the romans in rome itself, being a merely honorary/titulary appendage to the king of italy as lieutenant of the papacy (a lot of the conventions, such as the notion of a "germany" itself were virtual in importance, unlike in france or england, where these were dyed-in-the-wool realities). the guelph/ghibbeline, church and state conflicts eventually meant a breakdown between the old romance institutional usage of the foederatii (the "emperor" in this case) as vital allies of the classical romans. essentially, the term "german" was to remind the "emperor" that his position was precarious and that obedience to the papal chain of command was paramount to the pope's endorsement of "imperial" legitimacy. after all, the pope made the kings of italy and could break them as well. the title of emperor was given to charlemagne after his accession to ruling italy, so at this time, there was no kingdom of germany. germany was the springboard from which the franks came, nothing more or less. it is to the franks (on either side of the rhine limes, salian or ripuarian) that the title emperor was given, first and foremost.

the french also demolished the "empire" when it had outlived its purpose, under the italian napoleon. this means, that the classical element of the "empire" was most important to the claim of being an empire anyways. if not for italy or roman pretensions, there would be none! this should address the wholly inaccurate amount of undue weight given to germany ("magna germania" of the teutons or saxons, etc, rather than the traditional french bordering allemagne/allemanic type of identity), as a sideliner until revisionists like hitler tried to pretend that he was living up to tradition in the sense of reichs. also, the eagle standard for the "empire" is hardly anything other than blatantly classical roman symbolism, while the germanic peoples had other types of bird, like the raven. to stress it further for context, the german unification process happened in the wake of napoleon's confederation of the rhine and not any time before. that is because germanic peoples/tribes had always been decentralized, discordant and without a common identity. all the barbarians who attacked or served rome had nothing in common, despite the racial supremacist ethnolinguistics of historical revisionists of the romantic nationalist period who sought to exalt luther, the saxon wars and anything artificially coalescent, in the attempt to contrive one germany. this is absolute evidence that the holy roman empire was a germanicized bureaucracy ("imperial", royal or aristocratic families) sitting on top of a classical roman population--at the beck and call of the pope, because he was in charge of the west according to constantine (in the void of the roman court, after removal to byzantium) and to avoid romance rebellion, pepin donated to the pope as well (which was occassion for the pope to throw his support behind a revived imperial title in the west, not so false a trade-off, but not a technical donation without payment in return). hardly forgeries in essence, they merely served to continue or revive classical ways of life, despite the germanic intrusions. what this means is, the germanic rulership of ex-roman countries was contingent upon papal opinion (as protector of the roman west) and that of the entire christian populace whose loyalties until the fall of constantinople were entirely religious, even wary of secular, temporal powers such as the "emperor".

the "holy roman emperor" did not always have to be king of germany, but he always had to be king of the romans or of italy. so then, what justification for germanization and de-italization of wikipedia's focus is there, on the "holy roman empire"? just because the italians themselves think it was an inferior sham to the classical roman empire and are not proud of it, doesn't mean that it wasn't the establishment of the middle ages. incidentally, the germanic peoples in difference from the ex-classical world, have more in common with the slavic peoples in their relations to the uralic estonians (prussia) and hungarians (austria)...but maybe this is more of that germania superior-inferior, upper and lower lorraine, hochdeutsch-plattdeutsch, ripuarian-salian dichotomy--simply in the realm of eastern settlement by germans in the middle ages. the most vital sense of this that must be understood, is that germany was an extension of gaul, in the roman expansionist tradition of going east of the rhine, while german colonies were the furthest limit that roman influence could be gotten, through the holy roman empire and its successor states. but germany itself is not the focus, only the means by which custom was followed in this matter, to its logical conclusion. germany was long in an identity crisis between east and west, whether as to roman vs barbarian franks or the eventual rebarbarization of the germans by settler attachment (i.e. going native) with the east europeans. this is obviously what led to the 20th century split between east and west germany, but while the state of germany is roman, the people of germany are barbarian. ...and it's so funny that the germans forget that the slavs were demoralized and decultured germans, that the slavs forget that the germans were moralized and cultured slavs. steppe people invasions caused the confusion and it is not inconcievable then, why the germanic peoples during the classical roman era were in possession of lands now considered slavic, a type of people that only came onto record after the steppe invasions. it's also funny how russia could be so opposed to the germans, when the name russia comes from a germanic people--in effect, the russians allowed the steppe peoples like the huns, avars, mongols and khazars to divide the germans and slavs, to more effectively conquer europe--make neighbors hate eachother!

they are all non-classical, mediaeval north european plain peoples--to hell with infighting and old wounds!

kinda of alot crap written here... just one thing: the ancient (western) Roman Empire was completely destroyed for a few hundred years. It is no fairy tale that the "Holy Roman empire" is considered a German-ruled state, because that's what it actually was. The italian/lombardic kingship had nothing to do with becoming emperor. All emperors had to be elected german kings before. And Germans are no Slavs, if you intended to point that out...

There's an awful lot of waffling on this talk page. Not to mention speculation and original research. Please let's raise specific issues and address them in a straightforward manner.The second-to-last post is hard to follow, 'cause the author goes off on all kinds of tangents. But Wikipedia is not guilty of 'germanising' the Empire. Germany was the power base of the Ottonian empire. Can't get around that! And you can't get aweay from 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.--Gazzster (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags in the infobox

Why is the (post-revolutionary) French flag included (twice) in the Infobox? Unless anyone can give a good reason I would propose to remove it. --rossb 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Come to that, why is the flag of the Republic of Germany and the Second Empire there as well? --Gazzster 07:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no German flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.115.208 (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've worked out that these represent the successor states. But something has gone wrong with the infobox in gneneral - I think the successor states should be shown in more detail below; moreover the list of rulers has for some reason been truncated in the display although more of them appear in the code. --rossb 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

German Empire

What's with all the efforts to hide the fact that the HRE was primarily a Germanic state? What's with all those languages and flags and the implied revisionist history? Those implications are based on anachronistic views. The Holy Roman Empire was perceived throughout all its history as a Germanic Empire. And eventhough the pope called the German Emperor "Imperator Romanorum" at an official status, his standard name in medieval texts was "German Emperor". What most people fail to understand is that the word "Roman" during the middle-ages was a red herring, and as many scholars have pointed out it simply stands for "Imperial state". It has little or no connection to the Roman Empire whose history officially ends in the 5th century BC. It's pointless to pretend that ethnic identities were absent in the middle ages. They may not have been as strong as religious ones, but as medieval literature reveals they were very much active. I don't see anyone trying to imply that the Ottoman Empire was a not a primarily Turkish Imperial state, despite the fact that it was much more multi-ethnic and diverse than the HRE at every single account. Miskin 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is simply not true. HRE was not based only on the German states. The point of existence of HRE was that Christians bounded end of the world with the existence of the Roman Empire. When Roman empire became extinct clerics needed some replacement. Having HRE as a pure German state is in most Nazi terminology and the base for land demands of Nazi Germany. Remember what means Third Reich and just think about where is first (HRE) and second (German unification). Smeloin 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree partially with Miskin. It's simply a fact that it was common to refer to the emperor as the "German Emperor" and the Empire as "Germany" from the 11th cent. onwards. That's not through hostility to the Empire and its claims, it's usually quite casual and can be found in German as well as foreign writers such as Matthew Paris. And the emperors themselves eventually chose to style the Empire "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". And of course 80 to 90% of its inhabitants were Germans (which, btw, included people who spoke what we retrospectively call "Dutch"), and those who weren't mostly developed an aristocracy that spoke German. As for the Nazis ... well, one could make having a mother or going to the toilet look bad by reminding people that Hitler and Himmler were both of woman born and, additionally, urinated! The Germans called the Empire the Reich centuries before Hitler was even a little twinkle of lust in his father's eye. With that said, it should be borne in mind that the dominions ruled by the emperor included the Kingdom of Pavia/Italy and Arles/Burgundy as well as the Kingdom of Germany, so in the period that the Empire controlled all or most of those two other kingdoms, it's probably bad to refer to the Empire simply as "Germany", but we should not kid ourselves that the Holy Roman Empire was ever any modern-style multi-culturalist fantasy. To many of the emperors, the Bohemians and Carinthians were scum who had to speak German to be worth anything, while to emperors like Charles V and Frederick II the Germans themselves were prolly scum compared with superior Mediterranean cultures. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not a Germany. As for the Kingdom of Germany, it never existed, it is a historical nonsense. There were tens of little duchies but never a kingdom nor empire, it is just a dream. Holy Roman Empire gained attribute "of the German nation" early in the 15th century. In fact HRE was not a state at all. Smeloin 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't a state, what was it? A chieftaincy? A tribe? Seriously though, that misconception is indeed common, but as you'll see on that discussion page and elsewhere, it has been quite comprehensively demolished several times. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was Henry the Fowler King of, then? john k (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote from Harvard University Press' "Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century", "Constantine tranferred only the sedes regni to the Greeks, otherwise the empire was sub Romano nomine ad Graecos, and later sub Romano nomina ad Francos. After the decline of the Franks the Roman Empire went to the Lombards and to the Germans - or else back to the teutonici Franci."
So as you can derive from the Latin terms, back then just as now, the Roman Empire was considered finished by the 5th century. The Imperial states that succeeded were clearly characterised by an ethnic identity. You stated that the HRE was neither a state nor an empire. Do you have any sources to back up such seemingly absurd claims? Citing the 3rd reich as an argument is really not convincing. Miskin 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I find this idea that HRE was not a state intriguing. What was it then? By calling it a 'dream', Smeloin, I suppose you mean it was an ideal? Well, yes it was. The idea was that the HRE was the community of all Christendom under one secular head, the Emperor, and one spiritual head, the Pope. Kinda like the UN today, I suppose, only sexier. And in that sense it had no defined boundaries. I can see that. But also, I think you would find it hard to prove that it wasn't also a particular state, compposed mostly of Germans. --Gazzster (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly that it was mostly a German state from the time of Otto the Great onwards is an essential fact about the empire, and should be discussed. I'm not sure I understand Smeloin's arguments here. john k (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

yikes you people see only in black and white. I think it is safe to say that the HRE was a lot more centralized in the early centuries of her existence but by the reformation (in particular after the 30 years war) it became so decentralized that it can be called a loose confederation. Since Germans made up the vast majority of the population I think it is safe to say the HRE was a "Germanic entity" although during her foundation and early years she was meant to be the continuation of the Roman Empire. By the way "states" as we understand them did not emerge until the 16th and 17th century so this whole conversation to begin with is pointless. user:starzaz 21:36, 22 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.186.29 (talk)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.186.29 (talk)  

Good last point. We ought to be careful about transposing our modern idea of 'the state' to other centuries and other cultures (but can you sign your name, please? Makes the discussion more human).I don't see what the fuss is about though. The Empire was both German, and universal. Don't we essentially agree? No need to gto over it ad nauseum.--Gazzster (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it strange that Voltaire didn't consider the HRE an empire. While it was neither holy nor Roman, it certainly was an empire. It covered dozens of countries and all of central Europe. Sounds like an Empire to me. ForestAngel (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, not really that simple. After the Treaty of Westphalia, the Emperor had no power over the states - his power came from the Imperial domains in Austria. The other states of the "Empire" happily ran their own independent foreign policies, maintained their own armies, and coined their own money. Slac speak up! 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was actually called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after 1512. The emperors were all Germans, so it was mainly a German state or a German dominated federation. --217.83.0.137 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaders in infobox

The infobox does not facilitate all leaders listed. Its talk page suggests only to list the first and last. I would suggest to include also some key ones, ie (peace of Aubsbrug) Charles V (20), and (treaty of Munster) Ferdinand III (26). Copied the list below for future use, not to destroy work. Arnoutf (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

|leader1 = Otto I |leader2 = Otto II |leader3 = Otto III |leader4 = Henry II |leader5 = Conrad II |leader6 = Henry III |leader7 = Henry IV |leader8 = Henry V |leader9 = Lothair III |leader10 = Frederick I Barbarossa |leader11 = Henry VI |leader12 = Otto IV |leader13 = Frederick II |leader14 = Henry VII |leader15 = Louis IV |leader16 = Charles IV |leader17 = Sigismund |leader18 = Frederick III |leader19 = Maximilian I |leader20 = Charles V |leader21 = Ferdinand I |leader22 = Maximilian II |leader23 = Rudolf II |leader24 = Matthias |leader25 = Ferdinand II |leader26 = Ferdinand III |leader27 = Leopold I |leader28 = Joseph I |leader29 = Charles VI |leader30 = Charles VII |leader31 = Francis I |leader32 = Joseph II |leader33 = Leopold II |leader34 = Francis II |year_leader1 = 962–967 |year_leader2 = 973–983 |year_leader3 = 996–1002 |year_leader4 = 1014–1024 |year_leader5 = 1027–1039 |year_leader6 = 1046–1056 |year_leader7 = 1084–1105 |year_leader8 = 1111–1125 |year_leader9 = 1133–1137 |year_leader10 = 1155–1190 |year_leader11 = 1191–1197 |year_leader12 = 1209–1215 |year_leader13 = 1220–1250 |year_leader14 = 1312–1313 |year_leader15 = 1328–1347 |year_leader16 = 1355–1378 |year_leader17 = 1433–1437 |year_leader18 = 1452–1493 |year_leader19 = 1508–1519 |year_leader20 = 1530–1556 |year_leader21 = 1556–1564 |year_leader22 = 1564–1576 |year_leader23 = 1576–1612 |year_leader24 = 1612–1619 |year_leader25 = 1619–1637 |year_leader26 = 1637–1657 |year_leader27 = 1658–1705 |year_leader28 = 1705–1711 |year_leader29 = 1711–1740 |year_leader30 = 1742–1745 |year_leader31 = 1745–1765 |year_leader32 = 1765–1790 |year_leader33 = 1790–1792 |year_leader34 = 1792–1806

Czech Republic?

Um, what does the HRE have to do with the Czech Republic? I mean, yeah, it used to be part of the HRE, but other than that, they have nothing to do with each other. Can someone enlighten me? ForestAngel (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's one of the successor states, like Germany, Austria and Switzerland.--Gazzster (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Despite its name, the Holy Roman Empire never included Rome within its borders."

File:HRR 10Jh.png

map

The map shows something different. The red line with the borders from 972 includes Rome. --217.83.0.137 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Map on Main Page

For the map on the main page showing the borders of the HRE and how they align with modern national boundaries, is there any chance we could get some stronger colours? It's very faint and difficult to see. --76.66.16.56 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag navigation in infobox: Successor states

None of the flag navigation for the HRE's successor states show up, even though the code is there. What's up with that? Lockesdonkey (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)