Did it really?
How exactly was the German Empire Roman?
There was no German Empire in the middle ages. The German Empire originated in 1871.
The Empire in the middle ages was the Holy Roman Empire. Even the qualified "of the German nation" was officially added only in 1512. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
The idea in 962 was to connect the old empire of Charlemagne (crowned 800 AD), the last emperor of which died in 924 (only 38 years of a break). Charlemagne's Empire was basically Western Roman, it wasn't tied to Germany per se.
The last western emperor to use the title died in 480 (Julius Nepos). Between 480 and 800 it was "only" 320 years, while the western empire was believed to be ruled by the eastern emperor as the paramount ruler (nominal suzerain over the barbarian kings in Italy, Gaul etc.).
I suppose that Japan and China were surprised to hear that definition, seeing as the first Chinese Emperor predated the first Roman Emperor.
1. Read
2. Read with understanding
The poster you argue with referred to mediaeval Europe.
The Spanish during this period used the title or Emperor.
Yes, to denote the claim to be a superior ruler than the newer kings because his dynasty was older etc.
There was a Serbian Emperor in the mid 1300s.
There were barbarian "emperors" before anyway. And the Serbian one claimed Roman legitimacy. Final "corroboration" of the Serbian one's status came from confirmation of his title by Constantinople, i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire.
There were dozens of other Emperors that had even less to do with Rome than the HRE did.
Which doesn't make them "de iure" at all, and most or even all of them, needed to be recognised by the ERE to be seen as emperors. In the west, there were none really anyway. And "dozens" is an exaggeration. Here's a list of all remotely serious "emperors" past 1066:
ERE (Byzantium, Constantinople) from a debatable start to fall in 1453
HRE 800-924, 962-1806
Serbia 1346-1371 (nominally 1406)
Bulgaria - destroyed in 1018 by Byzantium but I guess one could see it as a stable thing going back to 681 and therefore legitimately recreatable
Latin Empire - 1204-1261 - was not even a separate empire but it was basically
the Byzantine empire under foreign emperors
Nikaian Empire - 1204-1261 - another one claiming to be
the true Eastern Roman Empire
Empire of Trebisond - about 1204 to 1461, yet another one claiming to be
the true Byzantium but at some point dropping the pretence and taking the title of "emperor of all the east" regardless of its tiny acreage
All Spain - 1086-1157 basically, generally forgotten even in Spain in 13th century, very little recognition outside Spain anyway
So you basically have various iterations of the ERE and of the HRE, two major emulators (still small-timers in the big scheme of things) in the east and one in the west.
Well Frisia can indeed be a bit tricky, rulers in and of the area like the count of Holland and duke (initially count (landgrave)) of Gelre did remember, that there once were kings of the Frisians, which were mostly legendary for them too.
Yes, but I'd still be willing to accept that legendary heritage as the basis for "de iure-ness". Mediaeval people would certainly have accepted (or even created) legends as the basis of legitimacy. It probably makes sense to limit the creatability of that kingdom to Dutch people.
This kingdom (along with Lotharingia and Burgundy) was also referred to during the negotiations between the Valois dukes of Burgundy and the HRE for a royal crown (slightly outside the period covered by the game; and they used it too to improve their spot in the order of precedence at the Papal court. So basically a kingdom, which had an empty throne for quite a while.
This could be a reason to make Frisia titular instead.
And on the other hand Nubia is a titular title in de iure Egypt for some reason! (While it should be de iure.)
Besides IMHO the kingdoms of Aquitaine and Bavaria seem to have had rather similar roles in their respective realms (on paper).
I could probably live with their creatability but a K. of Bavaria as a territorial unit is too much of a stretch. Aquitaine probably too.
Yes, certainly the kingdom of Bohemia had a degree of autonomy in the HRE (increased further when the Luxembourg kings managed to raise Prague to an archbishopric),
Worth noting that the Luxembourgs used their position as emperors of the HRE/Roman Kings to grab Bohemia for their own relatives as the suzerains of the extinct Premyslids. Bohemian succession wasn't obvious in 1306, so the Luxembourgs exercised the prerogative and took it over for themselves. One of the few direct interventions.
more than any other vassal (and previously the dukes of Bohemia), until the establishment of the prince-electors.
Well, while the royal title of Bohemia was the prerogative of the emperor to grant or not, until it finally became hereditary, I guess that as a major at least semi-independent nation with traditions they "deserve" a de iure Kingdom even back in 1066. Not an ideal solution but not bad, either.
For the record, Poland was not ruled by kings between 1079 and 1295 but it remained a kingdom in documents (what we'd call a de iure kingdom), with a special category of paramount prince on top, with other princes/dukes as his vassals.
Anyway gamewise, I agree that even an emperor should have some limitations in the realms of their vassal kings.
Yup.
).
