holy roman empire vs. germany

[Finellach]

1. Holy - because they recieved the blessing from the Pope
2. They were carrying on the Roman tradition.
3. It certainly was. Anyone who recieved the crown and the title from the Pope could call himself an Emperor. Not to mention the state was huge spreading across almost half of the continent.

I doubt all those other nations would agree to call it "German Empire" when it's doubtful that even "Kingdom of Germany" ever existed before 1871...

[Elewyn]

1. It wasn't holy - It WAS holy when it's founder, Charlemagne, was called as saint in times of Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1190) and because emperors called themselves the head of christians

2. It wasn't Roman - based on Roman tradition and inspired by power of Romans. Whole middle ages were in shadow of Roman Empire, not only middle ages, just see symbolism of Napoleon's empire and more symbolism of Hitler's 3rd Reich and nowadays USA, eagles of Rome, Kongress, Senate, governmental buildongs in roman style, "pax romana" - "pax americana" and so on. Rome was the greatest empire in history of European/Euro-American hstory, every other big "empire" is trying to follow Rome.

3. It wasn't an empire-what it was, if not empire? with emperors as rulers, with ambitions to be universal christian monarchy with emperor as head of all christians?

Of course it had nothing to do with Romans.
Basileos (emperor) in Constantinople is also caled emperor of Byzantium, not king of Greeks. He was king of Greeks like HRE's emperor was king of Germans

I repeat: If Germany instead HRE, then also Greece instead of Byzantium:angel:

[Finellach]

Elewyn now that you put it that way. I've noticed that most people confuse the fact the Emeperors of HRE were are elected and proclaimed as 'Kings of Germans' (or 'German Kings') that this actually means they were "Kings of Germanay".
But Germany as a homogenous state or kingdom didn't existed.

The title 'King of Germnas' was there merely to denote he was of German origin and that he was elected by the so-called german duchies.

It is like you would say Grace Kelly was Princes of America because she was an American Princes...get it? ;) :p

[Sir Turylon]

You got it right, that time. He was King Of Germans, not King of Germany. so the Kingdom of Germany did not exist.

so, why not call it the German-Roman Kingdom. if HRE would have to include too much of the region...

@ Elewyn. ah-hem. USA was not following Rome. Of course, some of the institutions have Roman names, but they are far from the Roman form of government.

@ The Eagle. of course. the Eagle is a symbol of power and majesty.

[Emhyr var Emreis]

oh, many new posts here since my last visit...

and it seems that devs are already decided.
I only hope that they did it wisely and did follow the brain instead of irrational fear that gamers won't buy the game if the area of nowadays Germany will be called right.

I think that 2 polls have spoken clearly enough to show them the right way.

[Ledhead]

I found this on www.serendipity.li :

"The Holy Roman Empire
by Raymond H. Schmandt




The Holy Roman Empire was the medieval state that embraced most of central Europe and Italy under the rule of the German kings from 962 to 1806. It was considered to be a restoration and continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, although in fact it had little in common with its predecessor. Earlier, the Frankish king Charlemagne had revived the same name. His Roman Empire lasted from 800 to 925. In 962, Otto I of Germany and Pope John XII cooperated in a second revival. Threatened in his possession of the Papal States by Berengar II, king of Italy, John begged Otto to come to his aid. Otto did so, and the pope solemnly crowned him Emperor of the Romans as a reward. From this time, the German kings claimed the right to rule the empire.

The Theory of the Empire

In theory, the Holy Roman Empire (the word "Holy" was added during the 12th century) reflected two important medieval values: the unity of all Christians, or at least all Western Christians, in a single state as the civil counterpart to the One Holy Catholic Church; and a concept of hierarchical political organization that called for one ultimate head over all existing states. In practice, the empire never fully conformed to either ideal. France and England, for example, never acknowledged any real subordination to the emperor, although they recognized a vague supremacy in him. The empire's aims varied according to the program and philosophy of the many emperors and popes who controlled its destiny. The German kings - who called themselves kings of the Romans, not kings of Germany, as soon as they were elected by the German princes - considered themselves entitled to become Roman emperor as soon as they could arrange the imperial coronation, which was supposed to take place in Rome at the hands of the Pope. (By later convention, they are called kings of Germany, however, and many of them never secured imperial coronation.) From the ruler's point of view, the imperial title established his right to control Italy and Burgundy as well as Germany and was thus a potential source of power, wealth, and prestige. The Empire's vast size and the disparity of its peoples, however, were serious obstacles to effective rule and good government.
The churchmen who crowned the emperors, and thus actually sustained the Empire, considered it to be the church's secular arm, sharing responsibility for the welfare and spread of the Christian faith and duty-bound to protect the Papacy. This view of the relationship between church and state, which dated from the reign of Roman emperor Constantine I, was generally accepted by both emperors and Popes. In practice, however, this partnership seldom worked smoothly, as one of the partners inevitably tried to dominate the other. Frequent fluctuations in the actual power and vitality of each individual as well as changes in the prevailing political and theological theories gave a fluid, dynamic quality to the empire's history. "

So my opinion is:
The HRE, wasn't holy, wasn't Roman and it wasn't an empire.

The only true and legitimate emperor resided in Constantinople. His title was inagurated by Augustus. All other christian rulers are kings.

The pope had no right in proclaiming a secular realm "holy".
And the title "Emperor" was not his to give.

It can of course be argued how "Roman" the Byzantine Empire was in 1453...

But the title/name Holy Roman Empire is a historical fact and a lot of people recognized it more or less so why not use it, but not until 1254!

[Elewyn]

*cough*, where did Augustus get the right to call himself an emperor?

Emperors of medieval western empire were legitimized by pope, tell me who legitimized ancient Roman emperors? army and symbolicly senate, no other power which have right for it.

Btw, tell me, who has the right to give anybody title of an emperor? The God only :) I guess, if anybody

It means then that roman empire was also no empire (and it's successor-Byzantine emp. the same) :) Titles come to existence when some somebody proclaims he has some title and other main powers around him accept it or some bigger power grants to smaller power a title which is lower than it's own (f.ex. an emperor can grant "king" title to some duke, a king can grant title of a duke to some count), at least until 19th century.

Give me definition of "Holy", and of "Empire" and then I can or cannot agree with you. With my interpretation there is no need to say it was not empire. It was empire like every other (by title and legalization)

btw actually HRE is far better than term Germany, I think that we both agree on this, and this is the main important thing here. Also it is already decided so we can write whatever we want, but change nothing.

btw, the term Holy Roman Empire was first used iin times of Frederick barbarossa as far as I know,but I may be wrong. I would put the name HRE also to 1158.

For needs of a game I would have no problem to use it also for empire of Otto I., because his empire was rather HRE than Germany. Charlemagne was king of Franks but emperor of Romans, to simplyfy it all his state was called Frankish empire, to tell it from Eastern empire (and ancient roman empire). For times of Otto you have only 3 possibilities:
Empire of Romans,
Germany
HRE

I would also suggest simple solution: The Empire, but it is too late now. i only hope it's not germany

[Ledhead]

Augustus right is the right of power. But that question in this thread is irrelevant to me right now. I'm just trying to draw the straightest line to the rightful claim of being called "Emperor". And IMO the straightest line goes from Augustus, to Diocletian, to Constantin and then to all the following emperors in Constantinople.
So to me anyone else calling himself Roman emperor (btw, does titles in English come with a capital letter...?) is an usurper, and the fact that the pope (another usurper) also calls that guy an Emperor doesn't make it right.

Sorry, I find it ridiculous to be forced to define "holy" to be able to say that something is un-holy. Do find "HRE" holy?
Let me come back to this issue if your pressing the matter.

The problematics that I have with the term "Empire" is that an Emperor rules an Empire...

I would prefer the title "King of the Germans", not "King of Germany".
But now it makes no difference an it has been decided, as you stated.

Peace

[Elewyn]

of course that straightest line of succession leads to Constantinople. That's absolutely clear. But Empire is not only Roman empire. There was many Empires in European history and only one has the right to be called Empire? that looks strange to me.

Garlemagne had also enough power to call himself an Emperor. He was usurpator of title Roman, that's true, but not of title Emperor! He had the same right to call himself an Emperor like Augustus.

Of course it's more right to call Otto king of Germans instead of king of Germany (Germans more-or-less existed, cannot say it about Germany), but he was also king of Italians and Lotharingians), all together Roman Emperor. Yes, he had no legal right to be called that (actually, in 1000 AD emperors in Constantinople were also usurpators, they only usurpated power of lasting empire, in the West the empire has fallen and was re-established by usurpators: Charlemagne and then Otto).

but devs' posts all around the forum seem to show that it will be Germany, no HRE, no kingdom of Germans, nothing else.
Instead of one real kingdom there will be 2 made-up and inaccurate kingdoms: Germany and Italy.:( ;(

[Sir Turylon]

Empire is really an iffy term. that is why we Americans call ourselves the United States, instead of the American Empire. ;)

Emperors are usually tyrants that take power for themselves. This was a custom back in Rome when things began to look bleak, the senate would appoint a "tyrant" to rule over all until the need was no longer there. The tyrant would then step back down because it was part of his dignitas.

Remember folks, the pope is only a man. so the Emperors of HRE were not ordained by God, but rather by man. Same thing goes with Byzantium (constantinople just sounds weird, even if it was named thus for emperor constantine).

what would be interesting in KoH is if you could control the "Germany section" and then after you have raised enough piety, petition the pope to crown you Holy Roman Emperor.....

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
what would be interesting in KoH is if you could control the "Germany section" and then after you have raised enough piety, petition the pope to crown you Holy Roman Emperor.....

I think this has something to with the multiple titles question I asked. Let's say if the King gets hold of the titles of Germany, Italy and Burgundy and raises enough piety he can then petition to the Pope and proclaim himself Emeperor. That would be great IMO.

[d'Honaire]

As far as the emperor, tyrant, goes I will have to disagree, partially, with Sir Turylon. There was an emperor, Cincinnatus, who was appointed, not once, but twice to restore and return Rome to a semblance of normality. Also, the idea of emperors that do nothing but take power for themselves is absolutely ridiculous. There are some individuals, Napoleon, that have taken it to an extreme, but for the most part, it is a title of honor and sacrifice. An emperor must not only rule over an empire, but must also give himself completly to the idea of his empire. It is not the people who rule and make decisions for that empire ,it is the emperor. Yes, power does corrupt, but you cannot say for certain that every Roman, Byzantine, French and Holy Roman, just to name a few, Emperor was corrupt. Each man carves out his own destiny and each man has the ability to do either right or wrong, but not every man that has taken the title Emperor has been corrupted by its power.:cheers: Also, yes, the Holy Roman Emperors may have been appointed(ordained) by the Pope, but that does not necessarily mean that he wasn't ordained by God. The Pope, as all members of the Roman Catholic Clergy, are the link between a parishoner and God. So, in saying that, whoever became the Emperor was ordained by God, but in Human form. Finally, I like Sir Turylon's idea of petitioning the Pope, after raising enough piety, to become Emperor.

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
Empire is really an iffy term. that is why we Americans call ourselves the United States, instead of the American Empire. ;) American empire would be closer to truth. :D

f.e. Augustus was not far more despotic and autoritatoive ruler than the President. But it is just my opinion, maybe little idealized Rome and little pessimistic opinion about "the most democratic state".

But yes, the idea of becoming emperor for piety and fame (and ruling significant parts of "Germany" and Italy would be great. But probably not for KoH as it is now and will be released.

[Sir Turylon]

wild geuss. you don't like Bush? or are you against how the govt is setup?

@D'Honaire
The Pope, as all members of the Roman Catholic Clergy, are the link between a parishoner and God. So, in saying that, whoever became the Emperor was ordained by God, but in Human form.
BLASPHMY! haha, j/k.

but seriously.. Pope was still a man, he was/is not an incarnation of God in human form. He was simply the lead... "pastor" or "clergy" of one church. But, for this time period, yeah.. it would be a cool idea to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor.

And yes, not all emperors are corrupt.

[d'Honaire]

If I didn't like the gov't, I wouldn't have a job.:cheers:

[Elewyn]

I don't like the President. Whole system is not perfect, but for a state like the USA it's the best (it doesn't mean it is the best for entire world!). Also it is far better than system of Saddam's rule.

btw. It is my "infidel's" opinion. You may study Bible whole life with the right advisors and you won't be able to see if the God wants this or that.

The only you can be sure is that God wants everybody to die when he is once born. And let's pray for it :)

Originally posted by d'Honaire
If I didn't like the gov't, I wouldn't have a job.:cheers: hey. You can dislike it. Just be carefull to keep it secret :)

Oh, Frujin, I'm very nervous and impatient, however I have strange feeling that I should never want to realize how it is gonna be :(

[d'Honaire]

@ elewyn
I'll drink to that!
Huzzah!!Huzzah!!Huzzah!!
:cheers:

[Elewyn]

let's drink, d'Honaire. Probably my last beer in this thread :(

since Frank Fay is talking in german equivalent of this thread about KoH not being Encyclopedie Brittanica, it looks like they haven't change their statement :(

I don't think that using right names of kingdoms in kingdom conquering simulation is beig Encyclopedia, but if you think it :(

[Frank Fay]

no, you misunderstood a bit...

we have been accused that our maps are not 100% accurate.... and that we did use in some cases the most common names, instead of local or native forms....

[Elewyn]

oh yes. Misunderstood. PC translator is doing very bad job. It's hard to understand him :)

btw I understand the impossibility to use native names as well as having map 100% accurate. But I don't want to repeat my point about accurancy :), you already know it:cheers: