What exactly was the Holy Roman Empire? Was it just a bunch of german states? Why did they pick the HRE name since I first thought it would be associated with Italy.
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The HRE was originally formed by King Charles the great, otherwise known as Chalemagne. It spanned modern day france and germany. As you can guess, it was originally a single state. It pretty much remained as such until the mid 13th century, although france broke off. It varied in size, occasionally taking italy and N.E europe. When the emperors became unable to control the empire, especially after the death of Frederick Barbarossa on the third crusade, it began breaking up into what was basically a commonwealth of independant states. It was occasionally reunited under the odd strong emperor. However, it was generally accepted that the emperor was the leader of the christian faith...under the pope of course. In the EU2 period, this was still true, and as such is represented.
It was originally formed by Charlemagne, the Pope crowned him Emporer of the Romans 800 AD. Charlemagne's Empire consisted of modern France, Germany and Italy. After his death the Empire split and declined. It was restored by the Emporer Otto I in 962, and consisted of Germany and northern Italy. In time the Emporers lost power as the individual princes gained. By the time of Europa Universalis they had lost all real control of Italy.
In the 18th Century Voltaire said "What we call the Holy Roman Empire is not Holy, is not Roman and is not an Empire.
Re: Re: What was the HRE?
And it was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire nor of German Nation
IIRC, it was even better, since whole name is "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation"
And it was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire nor of German Nation
It existed, in at least one form or another, until Nappy turned it into the Confeeration of the Rhine in 1806 (with greatly reduced borders). Is there a event for this in the game? In any case, the Confederation, IIRC, did'nt last past 1815, and the German states just existed as they had been until the Wars of Unifaction of the mid to late 1800's.
Also variously known as Karl der Grosse and Carolus Magnus; probably there are other variations.
Actually, it only ceased existing when the last Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor disbanded it in this year. This was of course prompted by Napoleon's creation of the Confederation of the Rhine (and also the failure of the HRE states to be of real help to Austria in the 1805 campaign).
No one has answered this question, so I'll tackle it:
"Rome" as a concept is very different from "Rome" as a city. The Roman Empire was long accepted as the predominant hegemony in the minds of Europeans, right down to Napoleonic times. After the fall of the the Western Empire, centered on the city of Rome, in the 5th century, Rome continued as the Eastern Empire, centered on Constantinople. Indeed, with a small break in the early 13th century, the Roman Empire existed continuously until the 1450's. Do a search for threads on "The Byzantine Empire", as there have been discussions on this. Basically, the people and government of what we now call "Byzantine" thought of themselves as Roman citizens, called themselves Romans, and called their land Rome. And had every right to.
In the 8th century, two things occured:
1) Political Turmoil in Constantinople resulting in a female Emporer, who was NOT accepted by the west.
2) Charlemagne had unified the Germans, French, and Lomabards under a single crown.
Since it appeared to the West that the Roman Imperial Throne was vacant, and Charlemagne was such an important dude, he had the Pope, acting as Pontifex Maximus (The Chief Priest of the city of rome who since ancient times had had the right to crown the Princips, and later Imperators (emporers) of rome, even before christianity) crown HIM the new roman emporer. In the minds of Western Europe, this shifted the "capital" of the Roman Empire from Constantinople to Aachen (Charlemagne's capital in modern NW Germany). From Charlemagne on (or from Otto I on, depending on how you count it) Western Europe considered the King of The Germans to be equivalent to the Roman Emporer.
Eastern Europe still considered the Hellenic Basilius at Constaninople to be Emporer, and so never recognized the HRE as a valid Roman successor state. After the fall of Constantinople, in the East, the "Roman" capital shifted again to Moscow, as at this point the Grand Dukes of Muscovy took on the title of Tsar (or Czar, Caesar), while in the West, the "Roman" capital was taken to be the city of Vienna, as the center of Hapsburg interests...
Even Seljuk and Ottoman turks, who succeed "Byzantium" as rulers of the anatolia/thrace area, took on the name of romans (Sultans of Rum) and the attic and pelopenesean greeks until the early 20th century called themselves not "Hellenes" (greeks) but "Rhomaioi" (romans). It wasn't until modern times that the concept of the Roman Empire was abandoned...
"Rome" as a concept is very different from "Rome" as a city. The Roman Empire was long accepted as the predominant hegemony in the minds of Europeans, right down to Napoleonic times. After the fall of the the Western Empire, centered on the city of Rome, in the 5th century, Rome continued as the Eastern Empire, centered on Constantinople. Indeed, with a small break in the early 13th century, the Roman Empire existed continuously until the 1450's. Do a search for threads on "The Byzantine Empire", as there have been discussions on this. Basically, the people and government of what we now call "Byzantine" thought of themselves as Roman citizens, called themselves Romans, and called their land Rome. And had every right to.
In the 8th century, two things occured:
1) Political Turmoil in Constantinople resulting in a female Emporer, who was NOT accepted by the west.
2) Charlemagne had unified the Germans, French, and Lomabards under a single crown.
Since it appeared to the West that the Roman Imperial Throne was vacant, and Charlemagne was such an important dude, he had the Pope, acting as Pontifex Maximus (The Chief Priest of the city of rome who since ancient times had had the right to crown the Princips, and later Imperators (emporers) of rome, even before christianity) crown HIM the new roman emporer. In the minds of Western Europe, this shifted the "capital" of the Roman Empire from Constantinople to Aachen (Charlemagne's capital in modern NW Germany). From Charlemagne on (or from Otto I on, depending on how you count it) Western Europe considered the King of The Germans to be equivalent to the Roman Emporer.
Eastern Europe still considered the Hellenic Basilius at Constaninople to be Emporer, and so never recognized the HRE as a valid Roman successor state. After the fall of Constantinople, in the East, the "Roman" capital shifted again to Moscow, as at this point the Grand Dukes of Muscovy took on the title of Tsar (or Czar, Caesar), while in the West, the "Roman" capital was taken to be the city of Vienna, as the center of Hapsburg interests...
Even Seljuk and Ottoman turks, who succeed "Byzantium" as rulers of the anatolia/thrace area, took on the name of romans (Sultans of Rum) and the attic and pelopenesean greeks until the early 20th century called themselves not "Hellenes" (greeks) but "Rhomaioi" (romans). It wasn't until modern times that the concept of the Roman Empire was abandoned...
Some of the smaller states were consolidated, which led to a larger Saxony, Bavaria, and Hannover. The Southern states looked to France and Austria for protection and alliance, while the northern states turned to each other for protection, even though Prussia soon received trade concessions, and eventually formed the NGC after the exclusion of Austria from North German affairs.
The HRE proper was NOT the "Carolingian" or "Frankish" Empire of Charlemagne, but the much later union of the 3 Kingdoms of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy. Otto I the Great united the German & Italian crowns with the Imperial (962), and Conrad II added the Kingdom of Burgundy (1032). It DID NOT include France or the Spanish territories. Charlemagne and the Carolingians NEVER called themselves "HR Emperor"; that term was coined by Frederick I Barbarossa (1157) specifically in reference to the Empire founded by Otto I the Great! The Emperor had to be elected on (East) Frankish soil, ie, within the Duchy of Franconia, then crowned King of Germany at Aachen (usually by the Archbishop of Cologne). He was then eligible to be crowned Emperor at Rome.
By the EU2 era, the Kingdoms of Italy & Burgundy had ceased to exist, and the King of Germany was now automatically HRE without deference to the Pope. So in effect the HRE had ceased to contain the Italian & Burgundian lands and was now limited to the Kingdom of Germany. This is why Maximilian I changed his royal title from "King of the Romans" to "King of the Germans". The structure of the EU2-era Empire is as follows:
The HRE, or Caesar (Kaiser) was also King of Germany (Deutscher Konig). The capital had moved from Aachen (too remote) to Frankfurt in the center of Germany. However, the Austrian Hapsburgs' real seat was at Vienna, the center of their family's power, but they were still elected and crowned at Frankfurt.
Those nobles who held land directly from him were the Imperial Princes (Reichsfursten). So in EU2, all German states who ARE NOT the vassals of someone other than the Emperor are Imperial Princes. Those IPs who had the right to vote in the Royal Election (Konigswahl) are Electoral Princes (Kurfursten). The 4 Temporal Electors (Weltliche Kurfursten) represented the nobility; the 3 Spiritual Electors (Geistliche Kurfursten) represented the clergy. Each Elector also occupies one of the Imperial Offices (Reichsamte):
1. Count Palatine of the Rhine-Imperial Steward
2. Duke of Saxony-Imperial Marshall
3. Margrave of Brandenburg-Imperial Chamberlain
4. King of Bohemia-Imperial Cupbearer (Butler)
5. Archbishop of Cologne-Chancellor of Italy, or "Imperial Chancellor"
6. Archbishop of Mainz-Chancellor of Germany
7. Archbishop of Trier-Chancellor of Gaul & Burgundy
In the Emperor's absence, the CP Rhine and the Duke of Saxony, as Steward & Marshall, governed Germany unless the Emperor named a regent.
The Emperor presides over the Imperial Diet (Reichstag), which consists of the Electors, the other Imperial Princes, and reps from the cities. In the Emperor's absence, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, as the Imperial Steward, presides. Any decision reached by the Diet was only binding on those who voted for it, and of course the Princes frequently "outvoted" the Emperor. He had to seek its permission to levy troops, taxes, etc. from their lands (but not from his own).
By the EU2 era, the Kingdoms of Italy & Burgundy had ceased to exist, and the King of Germany was now automatically HRE without deference to the Pope. So in effect the HRE had ceased to contain the Italian & Burgundian lands and was now limited to the Kingdom of Germany. This is why Maximilian I changed his royal title from "King of the Romans" to "King of the Germans". The structure of the EU2-era Empire is as follows:
The HRE, or Caesar (Kaiser) was also King of Germany (Deutscher Konig). The capital had moved from Aachen (too remote) to Frankfurt in the center of Germany. However, the Austrian Hapsburgs' real seat was at Vienna, the center of their family's power, but they were still elected and crowned at Frankfurt.
Those nobles who held land directly from him were the Imperial Princes (Reichsfursten). So in EU2, all German states who ARE NOT the vassals of someone other than the Emperor are Imperial Princes. Those IPs who had the right to vote in the Royal Election (Konigswahl) are Electoral Princes (Kurfursten). The 4 Temporal Electors (Weltliche Kurfursten) represented the nobility; the 3 Spiritual Electors (Geistliche Kurfursten) represented the clergy. Each Elector also occupies one of the Imperial Offices (Reichsamte):
1. Count Palatine of the Rhine-Imperial Steward
2. Duke of Saxony-Imperial Marshall
3. Margrave of Brandenburg-Imperial Chamberlain
4. King of Bohemia-Imperial Cupbearer (Butler)
5. Archbishop of Cologne-Chancellor of Italy, or "Imperial Chancellor"
6. Archbishop of Mainz-Chancellor of Germany
7. Archbishop of Trier-Chancellor of Gaul & Burgundy
In the Emperor's absence, the CP Rhine and the Duke of Saxony, as Steward & Marshall, governed Germany unless the Emperor named a regent.
The Emperor presides over the Imperial Diet (Reichstag), which consists of the Electors, the other Imperial Princes, and reps from the cities. In the Emperor's absence, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, as the Imperial Steward, presides. Any decision reached by the Diet was only binding on those who voted for it, and of course the Princes frequently "outvoted" the Emperor. He had to seek its permission to levy troops, taxes, etc. from their lands (but not from his own).
A little more analysis of the wonderful facts laid out...
What was the HRE?
It has been my experience that many scholars quickly dismiss the HRE as a meaningless abstraction, following in the opinion of Voltaire, as it were. I would argue, however, that the HRE was a lot more meaningful than this, from several perspectives.
For example, in the modern world when we try to determine "statehood", there are generally four essential elements, without which a state cannot claim sovereignty. (1) It must have a defined territory. (2) It must have a defined population. (3) It must have a central government of some kind. (4) It must have the ability to conduct diplomacy and (though this clause is debated) to be recognizes as having the capacity so to do by other powers. An argument could be made that the HRE was a "state" based on these, though that might go a bit far. It had a territory and population (including some, like those in the Free Cities, who owed loyalty exclusively to the empire). What about a central government? The structures were set into place: the Diet, executives, etc. as outlined by ewright above. Clearly it had some authority, but enough to qualify it as a government? I would argue that it did. Just because the power of a central authority is de minimus does not eliminate it as a government. Furthermore, the presence of other independent powers/states within the HRE is not as problematic as it first appears: it is merely a federal system (in modern parlance). Federal systems apportion sovereignty between entities. In the USA, for example, the states retain independent sovereignty apart from the federal government, just like a "monarch" in the HRE. Finally, it seems reasonable to conclude that the HRE was recognized by the crowns of Europe as being representative of itself and it did in fact conclude limited treaties on its own behalf. This, of course, would require a few more factual examples than I have to give. Taken together, these factors tend to indicate a separate, meaningful existance for the HRE.
But besides these, the HRE seemed to wield some important attributes of independence and commanded some respect in Europe. It had its own power structure of titles, nobility, etc., which was quite meaningful to Europeans of those centuries. Armies were often raised in its defense (usually against the Turk). Although the HRE didn't maintain a standing army, neither did most of the states of Europe until the late 1600s (indeed, the practice of maintaining a standing army was still viewed as a pernicious one by Americans of the late 18th & early 19th centuries). The HRE commanded respect from the people of Europe, even if it may have been a paper tigre. Furthremore, the Imperial Diets did matter; take, for example, the decision-making processes and responses during the early days of the Reformation, where the HRE took a central role. An argument could also be made that there were economic ties, unique to the HRE, that bound the states together in a way which they were not bound to the rest of Europe.
Taking all these factors together, I believe a strong argument can be made that the HRE was a meaningful force in European politics and did exist as a more realistic entity that it is given credit for.
What do you think?
What was the HRE?
It has been my experience that many scholars quickly dismiss the HRE as a meaningless abstraction, following in the opinion of Voltaire, as it were. I would argue, however, that the HRE was a lot more meaningful than this, from several perspectives.
For example, in the modern world when we try to determine "statehood", there are generally four essential elements, without which a state cannot claim sovereignty. (1) It must have a defined territory. (2) It must have a defined population. (3) It must have a central government of some kind. (4) It must have the ability to conduct diplomacy and (though this clause is debated) to be recognizes as having the capacity so to do by other powers. An argument could be made that the HRE was a "state" based on these, though that might go a bit far. It had a territory and population (including some, like those in the Free Cities, who owed loyalty exclusively to the empire). What about a central government? The structures were set into place: the Diet, executives, etc. as outlined by ewright above. Clearly it had some authority, but enough to qualify it as a government? I would argue that it did. Just because the power of a central authority is de minimus does not eliminate it as a government. Furthermore, the presence of other independent powers/states within the HRE is not as problematic as it first appears: it is merely a federal system (in modern parlance). Federal systems apportion sovereignty between entities. In the USA, for example, the states retain independent sovereignty apart from the federal government, just like a "monarch" in the HRE. Finally, it seems reasonable to conclude that the HRE was recognized by the crowns of Europe as being representative of itself and it did in fact conclude limited treaties on its own behalf. This, of course, would require a few more factual examples than I have to give. Taken together, these factors tend to indicate a separate, meaningful existance for the HRE.
But besides these, the HRE seemed to wield some important attributes of independence and commanded some respect in Europe. It had its own power structure of titles, nobility, etc., which was quite meaningful to Europeans of those centuries. Armies were often raised in its defense (usually against the Turk). Although the HRE didn't maintain a standing army, neither did most of the states of Europe until the late 1600s (indeed, the practice of maintaining a standing army was still viewed as a pernicious one by Americans of the late 18th & early 19th centuries). The HRE commanded respect from the people of Europe, even if it may have been a paper tigre. Furthremore, the Imperial Diets did matter; take, for example, the decision-making processes and responses during the early days of the Reformation, where the HRE took a central role. An argument could also be made that there were economic ties, unique to the HRE, that bound the states together in a way which they were not bound to the rest of Europe.
Taking all these factors together, I believe a strong argument can be made that the HRE was a meaningful force in European politics and did exist as a more realistic entity that it is given credit for.
What do you think?
Well, there is only one problem with this view: In a federal system, the subservient units don't maintain their own foreign policy. The member states of the HRE depended little on the Empire for their foreign policy. The HRE of the renaissance was not so much a federal state as it was an "alliance" of sorts with a CEO (in the person of the emporer) but whose member allies maintained a largely independant existance. Indeed, for its first 200 years, the HRE was definately a nation-state, but its gradual demise meant that by the 17th century or so, it was little more than a loose confederation of largely independant states.
I believe you're correct. As I said, an essential attribute of sovereignty is exclusive control of foreign policy, and factually the HRE probably did not have this monopoly. But, for the sake of argument, in the middle-period HRE (renaissance period & the Reformation), the foreign policy of the HRE had independent value. An interesting question for research might be a contrast of the foreign policy worth and value of the HRE against the worth of the independent states. I suspect as a general matter, the separate states had much less value diplomatically than the HRE. Take the modern USA as an analogy. Recently, the states of the US have made independent diplomatic moves. Our Illinois Governor George Ryan has made visits to Cuba, contravening federal foreign policy isolating that island republic. These visits hardly negate the independent sovereign nature of our federal US government, yet they are on-going. Perhaps the states of the HRE were acting in a similar manner. I wonder if perhaps we might find similar examples of such action in the early history of the US republic, when the position of the states was much stronger than today.
Is there anyone else reading this forum from a federal nation who can attest to similar actions by constituent units? I would be particularly interested in anyone from Belgium, which has a unique form of federal government.
The Swiss cantons have the right to conclude treaties with other nations so long as it doesnt conflict with rights or interests of the Confederation or other cantons. (Art. 56) One could argue that this is not too far off from the HRE as the HRE constituent states were not supposed to act in way harmful to the Emperor.
Switzerland is a Confederation.
all the federal and quasi-federal states (Germany, US, Spain)have only one foreign policy.
well, not sure that the US has any (Ok, is OT).
all the federal and quasi-federal states (Germany, US, Spain)have only one foreign policy.
well, not sure that the US has any (Ok, is OT).
Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution effectively cuts states out of the foreign-policy preocess and strips them of all meaningful power in that regard. But that needn't be the case. The exercise of a limited foreign policy is not necessarily inconsistent with a united country.