• 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.

Calgacus

General
17 Badges
Jan 7, 2003
2.086
2
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Island Bound
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
1) Hugh Capet, the first real French king, was elected
2) The fact that the Kings of Germamy attached the kingdoms or Burgundy, Italy, Bohemia and Sicily often confuses people. As do modern national divisions.The HRE eventually did contain French and Italians, but they weren't part of Germany anyway. If you don't have an awareness of historical change to the extent of the German kingdom and the HRE, you'll make the mistake imposing later boundaries onto the past.
In fact, the entire ruling elite of the German kingdom were Germans/Teutons; Meideval Germany (i.e. mod. Germany, Austria, Swiz. AND Holland BTW) was one gigantic linguistic continuum, just like the Roman south and west. Emperors started to use "King/Emperor of the Romans" in official correspondance after Otto coronation in Rome, but were known as firstly as kings of Frankia Orientalis. But in fact, from Verdun onwards, East Frankia is defined by its Germaness, the "Lingua Teudisca" in contrast to the "Lingua Romana." It's a myth that "nationalism" is a modern phenomenon, at least if one means by "nationalism" a loyalty of affiliation with a nation or ethnic group...that is complete mince, as anyone who has studied pre-modern history can testify. Actually, almost every medieval kingdom is originally based on some kind of elite ethnic integrity (the kingdom wouldn't function without it anyway). One reason to keep king of the Romans, is that it increased the legitimacy of their rule over Italy, and lifted them from a dependency of their ethnic base.

The person citing those sources above is being careless. These documents were political, aimed mostly either from or at the Church or foreign princes...as successors of CHarlemagne and Constantine, of course, the German kings promote their Holy Romaness.

Reading Otto of Freising's Gesta Friderici, it is obvious that the real identity of the kingdom is German, since the land is called Germany, and the Germans "Germans", not Romans. Read Konrad's letter to Emperor John of Byzantium:

(I'll transcribe some:)

"Conrad, by the grace of God august emperor of the Romans to John, by the same grace emperor at Constantinople, sends greetings and brotherly love

...

"We beseech that you grant the people of our Empire, namely, to the Germans (Teutonicus) who sojourn in Constantinople, a place whereone to build a church to the glory of God, both out of regard for the heavenly reward and because of the intercession and petition of our love...."

Just selected the two important passages which highlight these common misunderstandings. Here is another extract from Conrad's letter to Emperor Manuel

"Conrad, by the grace of God truly emperor august of the Romans to his dearest brother Manuel, born to the purple, Comnenus, illustrious and famous king of the Greeks, greeting and brotherly love.

.......

"Concerning the Russians, moreover, about whom we wrote to your father, the Emperor John of blessed memory, by our most faithful chaplain, Albert, and by Count Alexander of Gravina, and concerning the place in which we wish to build for our Germans a church, to the glory of God...."

In fact, the 'Rex Teutonicorum' and 'regnum Teutonicum' and even 'rex Germanorum' one or twice later) are employed frequently in the 10 and 11th centuries, as is "Rex Theotonicorum", as when William of Ockham says "et postea obtinuit Otto primus rex Theotonicorum, sicut legitur eadem dist", even though he is wrong about Otto being the first king.

3) It's highly be anachronistic to impose post-1648 Germany onto the High Middle ages. Succession to the German throne was pretty consistant in the middle ages, at least before the post Frederick II crisis. Elections were usually purely a formality unless a dynasty came to an end. It certainly wasn't a free-for-all, as the EU model has it. Elections happened for much of this period in the same way that the Senators choose the Roman Emperor - purely as a rubber-stamp. Germany was a strong, unified kingdom until the reign and death of Frederick II. Germany was much more centralized than France was in the period, it would just be odd to have France and Kievan Rus, but not Germany.

I love EU II, but the main and (almost) the only spoiling factor is that there is no chance to unify Germany as Germany...and that, of course, means that the 30 Years War is completely meaningless in the game.

4) Just a note on the end of Germany. In constrast to what was said above, the concept of the kingdom Germany did survive into the 18th and 19th centuries. It wasn't until 1806 that Francis II of Germany/HRE renounced the Imperial title, and gave independence to the German states.

On 12th July 1806, Napoleon had formed the Rheinbund - the Confederation of the Rhine - where all members were to renounce formal allegiance to the phantom that was the "German Empire" by August 1st 1806. The German states responded by expressing their view that the German state had already ceased to exist.

On 6th August, the last German Emperor of the 1st Reich formally abdicated, sending this message to the German princes:

"We, Francis II, etc.

"Since the conclusion of the peace of Pressburg, our whole attention and care had been directed, with our usual faithfulness and conscentiousness, to utterly fulfill the obligations which thereby had been contracted and to preserve for our peoples the blessings of peace, to confirm everywhere the friendly relations which had been propitiously restored, and to await and see if the changes in the German Empire introduced by this peace would make it possible for us to carry out the heavy obligations placed on us as head of the Empire by the electoral capitulation. The consequences which have resulted from several articles from the moment of their publication up to the present, and the well known events which have occurred in the German Empire, have convinced us that it would be impossible under the circumstances to further satisfy the duties under the capitulation; and even if the possibility remained that through the propitious elimination of certain political complications a new state of affairs should arise, the agreement signed on July 12 in Paris by several prominent states and since confirmed by the signatories, to completely secede from the Empire and to unite in a separate Confederation, definitively shatters such an expectation.

"Being thereby completely persuaded of the total impossibility to carry out any longer the duties of Our imperial office, We owe it to our principles and our dignity to renounce a crown which could retain value in our eyes only as long as we were able to answer the trust placed in us by the Electors, Princes and States, and other members of the German Empire, and to fulfill the obligations we had assumed.

"We therefore declare by these presents that we view the bound that until now tied us to the bodies of the German Empire to be dissolved, the office and dignity of head of the Empire to be abolished by the union of the confederate states of the Rhine, that we consider ourselves absolved from all the duties we had assumed toward the German Empire, and that we set aside the imperial crown and imperial government which we had held on account of these duties.

"At the same time we free the Electors, Princes and States, and all members of the Empire, in particular the members of the highest imperial courts and all other servants of the Empire, from their obligations by which they were bound to us as legal head of the Empire in accordance with the constitution. Conversely, we consider all our German provinces and imperial lands to be free of the obligations they had until now toward the German Empire under any title, and by uniting them with the whole Austrian state, we, as Emperor of Austria, will strive to bring them in new and renewed peaceful relations with all powers and neighboring states to that degree of happiness and prosperity which is the aim of all our desires and the purpose of our most urgent care.

"Given in our capital and residence of Vienna, the 16th August 1806, in the 15th year of our reign of the Romans and of the hereditary lands.

(signed) Franz"


http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre-abd.htm



The German kingdom, of course, had not really been a real kingdom since 1648. Nevertheless, the in many ways, the document marks the formal end of medieval Germany.

On the other hand, after the defeat of Napoleon, the Empire was reinstituted by as the German Confederation, with the Habsburg dynasty/Austria as permanent president.

After the defeat of Austria in 1867, the German Confederation was replaced by the North German Confederation, which in turn was re-converted, or rather, re-centralized, into the German Empire by the conquering Prussians.
 
Last edited:

Phystarstk

Major
117 Badges
Jun 6, 2003
755
0
Visit site
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Roses
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Elven Legacy Collection
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Heir to the Throne
Someone else made my argument for me. Much thanks :) :) :)

I want to top it off with questioning the use of future success and centralization as a benchmark of the existence of a nation.

If we use this type of benchmark, then the Poland of the 17th and 18th centuries wasn't Poland. In the late 17th and 18th centuries, it was huge, decentralized (Sejm + liberum veto + foreign kings = lack of power in the center), incredibly multi-ethnic and heterogeneous, and the power of its leaders shrank. Heck, the kings were even elected, just like the HRE.
Also just like the HRE, it was destroyed largely due to foreign influence.
Considering that the HRE was repeatedly called Germany and such (I was going to prove this, but someone else has already done a decent job), then I don't see how you could say that the HRE was not Germany without also saying that Poland wasn't Poland.
 

Duuk

Reformed Badboy
23 Badges
Oct 16, 2001
6.137
1.402
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Cities: Skylines
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
In the CK era, almost every "nation" as we think of them was a patchwork of nobles with no centralized core. Until the 1400-1500s this was seen as normal.

In 1066, the HRE and France (etc etc) were equivilent. That France became more centralized in the 1500s while the HRE did not has little to do with the CK era and more to do with the HRE not being bright enough to see the wave of the future.

England is an exception to the rule, and I'm willing to argue this was due to its wholesale conquest in 1066 which left it under the central command of the Duc du Normandie rather than in the hands of local rulers each trying to maintain their own power.

So should the HRE be modelled? Sure. But since CK is more about dynastic politics the effects of being HRE should be more prestige-oriented than much else. (After all, if my prestige is very high, I shouldn't have to have ugly wives married into the family ;) )
 

unmerged(11206)

Captain
Oct 4, 2002
423
0
Visit site
Dinsdale said:
Nice job, hoist by my own petard :) There is certainly administrative differences between the German Kingdom and "other areas," there is an administrative unit of Gaul; is that France if this is Germany? ;) Would you claim that an early German Kingom existed as a part of the HRE?

The administrative unit of "Gaul" referred to that part of "Gaul" ruled by the German Emperor, meaning the Kingdom of Burgundy. For this reason, the Archbishops of Trier, Lyons, Vienne, etc., as Chancellors of Burgundy, were sometimes referred to as "Chancellors of Gaul". It doesn't mean France entire.

And yes, there was a Kingdom of Germany (Rex Teutonicum) from 911-, but I've already had that debate several times, most recently in the History forums. Links there if you're interested. :)
 
Last edited:

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Well I would like to throw a couple of things into this discussion. With regards to Scottish national feeling here you can find the declaration of Arbroath http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html which was the document that effectiveky made may Robert the Bruce King. The key paragraph for me is the following

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

It might not be nationalism in the sense we know it, but for many it is sign of some sort of national spirt. A spirt that was shattered after the failed colonisation attempt in central America and willingly walked into the Union. A Spirt that lay dormant during the Imperial years when British was best and reawacked again in the mid twenth centaury.

Just a thougth regarding the difference between France and the HRE. It is not the HRE fell apart and France did not, they both did. By 1170 the Planatgents Ruled and Empire that Steched from the Scottish Borders to the Pyrnees and if you include the Vassals of the Duke of Brittany and the COunts of TOulouse included substantially most of PResent day France. The difference between the two is that somehow the French King were able to put the real back together and the Hol Roman Empire could not, the thirty years war was the last bid and in the end Ferdinand was never willing the pay the money it would cost for final victory.