Holy Roman Empire

[emperor]

was the holy roman empire roman and how did it coraspond with the ancient roman empire

[Emperor Goblinus]

It was called Holy Roman, but it was not Roman. It was German, and it's founder Charlemagne had little connection to the ancient Romans. His Germanic tribe, the Franks, I believe in fact had helped to lead to the decline of Rome. As time went on, it slowly went from an empire to a local German principality. While all of the other western European nations were centralizing their governments, the Holy Roman Empire was becoming more decentralized.

Others here I think are more knowledgeable about this than me.

[Neos Dionysos]

was the holy roman empire roman and how did it coraspond with the ancient roman empire

 

Other than name it had no relation to the Roman Empire of antiquity. It was created, and Charlamgne crowned Emperor, to supplement and be a check of balance with the Eastern Roman Empire and her Emperor. The west no longer wished to be under the yoke of the east and this was the first major step in breaking away from thier control.

[Tobias]

There should be a bit of distinction here. Charlemagne's Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were two different empires. Charlemagne, King of the Franks and annointed "Emperor Governing the Roman Empire" by Pope Leo III, conquered the majority of Continental Christian Western Europe, and once he died, his territories fell to pieces until all that was left was the Kingdom of Italy. This Empire began with Pepin, King of the Franks, defending the Papacy from the Lombards, (beginnning around 754 AD) and began to disintegrate after Charlemagne's death in 814 AD.

 

The Holy Roman Empire came into being when "In the West, most of the lands of Charlemagne's Empire were reunited, and this time the Empire proved far longer lasting. In 952 Otto I, King of Germany, had taken the Kingdom of Italy by force. In 962, the Pope crowned him Emperor in Rome. The connection between Italy and Germany was made secure by the addition of the Kingdom of Burgundy (south-east Gaul) in 1033. The Holy Roman Empire gained Sardinia in 1046, but lost the Duchy of Spoleto (central Italy) in 1144. It also expanded eastwards into Poland, making Silesia a dependency in 1163 and annexing Pomerania in 1181. Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg recognized the Popes' declaration of independence of the Papal States in 1278" -via http://4umi.com/image/map/rome/19maps.htm#338%20BC

 

The Holy Roman Empire was thus effectively deprived of the right to call themselves "Roman", if they ever had it in the first place. it existed as a state for quite some time.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Tobias

[longbow]

To quote the philosopher Voltaire

The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

[Philhellene]

There should be a bit of distinction here. Charlemagne's Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were two different empires.

 

Oh, realy?

 

and once he died, his territories fell to pieces until all that was left was the Kingdom of Italy. This Empire began with Pepin, King of the Franks, defending the Papacy from the Lombards, (beginnning around 754 AD) and began to disintegrate after Charlemagne's death in 814 AD.

 

First of all, the Empire began with Charlemagne, not Pepin. You forgot that the Merovigians waged wars with Italian states as well. Then Charlemagne's empire was "disintegrated" even under Charlemagne himself. It was Charlemagne who divided his state into 3 parts between himself and his two sons. And it was usual German custom to divide the state between sons. Then you forgot that Charlemagne`s successors became emperors, and not only "German" kings. So the "German" emperors are the direct successors of his empire.

 

By the way, Thietmar says that when Otto became an emperor he became "a patron of Roman Church" (Chronicon, II, 13), i.e. the title "emperor" meant just "the patron of Roman Church" (for Thietmar).

Edited December 17, 2005 by Philhellene

[Tobias]

Oh, realy?

 

Do i detect a hint of sarcasm

 

First of all, the Empire began with Charlemagne, not Pepin.

 

That was ill worded. What i meant was that the territory or power being formed to become Charlemagne's empire began under Pepin.

 

Then you forgot that Charlemagne`s successors became emperors, and not only "German" kings. So the "German" emperors are the direct successors of his empire.

 

I did not forget. If you will be so good as to remember, as the Empire shrunk, they were merely fooling themselves to consider themselves "Emperors". Some of Charles' descendants were given names like Charles the Fat etc, which denoted the increasing lack of respect for these "Emperors". I just took the step of jumping ahead of the period of decay that caused Charlemagne's empire to shrink down to the Kingdom of Italy.

 

Otto became an emperor he became "a patron of Roman Church"

He had enough to power to enforce his will as an Emperor, though.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Oh, realy?

Otto became an emperor he became "a patron of Roman Church"

He had enough to power to enforce his will as an Emperor, though.

 

Oh I doubt about that my friend, for the Papal power of excommunication is a very scary and serious danger to any Emperor. (Effectively during that time period, the Medieval age of course)

[Philhellene]

That was ill worded. What i meant was that the territory or power being formed to become Charlemagne's empire began under Pepin.

 

But I told you that if you consider Pepin as the founder of Charlemagne's empire, why you forget the Merovingians and their achievements?

 

I did not forget. If you will be so good as to remember, as the Empire shrunk, they were merely fooling themselves to consider themselves "Emperors". Some of Charles' descendants were given names like Charles the Fat etc, which denoted the increasing lack of respect for these "Emperors".

 

You think that Charles called himself "the Fat"? By the way the great Byzantine emperor Constantine V was called by his subjects "Copronymus", or "The Defecator" in English. This emperor was fooling himself as well?

Edited December 18, 2005 by Philhellene

[Ursus]

I don't mean to stifle discussion, but the topic is the Holy Roman Empire. If people want to debate the Byzantines and their merits or lack thereof, there is about 12 other threads on this forum for doing just that. Thanks.

[Philhellene]

Ursus, you didn`t read the massages above...

[Tobias]

But I told you that if you consider Pepin as the founder of Charlemagne's empire, why you forget the Merovingians and their achievements?

 

Mate, i don't know if i'm reading some of your posts wrong or if you're reading mine wrong, but i am not calling Pepin the founder of Charlemagne's empire. I'm just saying that this growing relationship with the church was advanced further with Pepin clearing the lombards out of the Papal states.

I am not forgetting the Merovingians, i just don't want to get too into the dynastic side of things. I admit, however, that they were very instrumental among the Franks.

 

You think that Charles called himself "the Fat"?

 

That's my point. The People had little faith or respect in this person as an "Emperor".

Edited December 18, 2005 by Tobias

[Philhellene]

Mate, i don't know if i'm reading some of your posts wrong or if you're reading mine wrong, but i am not calling Pepin the founder of Charlemagne's empire.

 

You sad:

 

This Empire began with Pepin...

 

The People had little faith or respect in this person as an "Emperor".

 

So is Nero the emperor? Respect of subjecsts - bad criterion.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Philhellene

[Philhellene]

The Holy Roman Empire came into being when "In the West, most of the lands of Charlemagne's Empire were reunited, and this time the Empire proved far longer lasting. In 952 Otto I, King of Germany, had taken the Kingdom of Italy by force. In 962, the Pope crowned him Emperor in Rome.

 

The Roman Empire of German people became "Holy" only under Friedrich Barbarossa in the middle of the 12th century. Besides Niccolo Macchiavelli in his "History of Florence" called Arnulf "the first german emperor" (crowned in 896). Why modern historians used to consider Otto the first Holy Roman emperor?

Edited January 8, 2006 by Philhellene