Funnily enough there could be some truth to that claim considering that the French were envious of the titles, crown and diplomatic + religious influences of the HRE ever since its inception. All of that has its roots in the Western vs Eastern Frankish Kingdom rivalry.
In all seriousness, it's just unreasonable to judge the HRE as something that didn't evolve and change over its millenium long existence. There were times it very much did live up to its name, and there were times where it was far closer to the Voltaire quote. Take any point where you can go 1,000 years forward or backwards in the Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire and it'll look vastly different, with government vastly differently structured.
@@arsray7285yes, and the imperial title was so prestigous, that Emperor Francis II. needed to pay with prestige to destroy the title in 1806. He even created another empire-tier title beforehand so that he could switch main title because you can't destroy your main title
Meanwhile the EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE, was constantly Holy, Roman and an empire for all of it's history, not a republic at one time and a kingdom at another, always it was a Holy Roman Empire, which g*rms in their anger and frustration of still being barbarians, called them greeks rather than ROMANS
Trouble with HRE is kinda the same as the Ottomans and their image of being the "sick man of Europe". People only remember them in the state of the final decline, not the long and glorious past
Same phenomenon as the Habsburg Empire; armchair historians go way too hard on the Ottoman Empire because it doesn't fit into the modern ideal of a nation-state
Ottomans is a good example. The undisputed most powerful empire in the world by far during the 1500s. Conquered half of Eastern Europe to Vienna and Kyiv, and south to Ethiopia and even Zanzibar. West to Morocco, east to Iran and beyond. Colonies in Indonesia and Western China, huge trade routes. Was the main reason why Europe had to turn west to America. Center of art, culture, and learning for centuries, with cutting edge technology and a lot of religious tolerance. Yet most people will only know it as "WWI sick guy lolol". Even in WWI they did tremendously well, recapturing the Caucasus, Egypt, and resisting the two most powerful states in the world and massive rebellion for a good six years, and even managed to get some concessions from Britain and France in return.
@@precariousworlds3029 Center of art, culture and learning? Lmao the Ottomans were never good at art, the Europeans at the time perfected art and produced artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci, Ottoman art pales in comparison. And what learning, the Ottomans refused to adopt the printing press which made education harder
@@theotheagendashill818 A lot of previous scholarly works from the Islamic world and Silk Road were introduced into Europe by the Ottomans, including the rediscovery of many classical texts from Roman and Greek antiquity. The stability the empire provided in comparison to the chaos of Post-1204 Byzantium allowed for this. Just look at some of the Ottoman Art and Architecture in this period, like the Blue Mosque, mosaics and calligraphy. It's incredible.
You forget about one thing which makes me, as a German, actually quite proud of it: Since the HRE was at some point, mostly because of its (political) fragmentation & organization in general, not able to pursue an expansionistic political agenda anymore, this led ultimatively to its downfall by the - yes, let's call them out - french, it remains as a very peaceful entity which focused on keeping the (internal) peace and rule of law. Comparing to Spain, Portugal or England and their genocides and mess all along the Americas during the modern times, I really think this has paid off until today. Regarding the rule of law: Certainly a very German trait until today and although very modified ofc, the origins of our body of laws lies within its Roman roots - unlike the Anglo-Saxon one.
Crazier is the USA was a close ally of the country which ultimately destroyed the HRE, Napoleonic France. In fact we joined Napoleon in one of his Coalition Wars. In America we call it the War of 1812.
@@omarali262Rome isn't still in charge? Ive seen all of my Presidents bow down to the Pope so I'm skeptical its ended at the time of Napoleon. I mean 7/9 of the Supreme Court is Catholic and the President is Catholic. I think they're just quieter now but definitely still here...
Funnily enough, in Spanish. The Holy Roman Empire is called the "Sacro Imperio Romano". Which has literally the same meaning as the latin name, so this misconception never spread in the Hispanic world.
*The Holy Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years, making it one of the longest-running empires in history.* It confuses me how much people tend to forget that.
@@zetsubou9780 So what is your arbitrary definition of an empire? My guess is that yours will exclude basically every single empire ever. The most used definition of an empire is "An extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority", no one matches the description better than the Holy Roman Empire.
The English word "empire" is actually ambiguous. In German we have different words like " "Kaisertum", "Kaiserreich", "Reich", "Imperium" (from Latin) and "Empire" (from English). ▪︎At one hand, "empire" means a state governed by a monarch who is called an emperor rather than a king*), no matter its size. This is what "Kaiserreich" refers to, in rarer cases "Kaisertum" as well but the latter rather stands for the institution of an emperor. ▪︎At the other hand, a state is called an empire if it's very large and exceeds the nation state, for instance by a state having colonies. The head of this state _may_ be an emperor but also a king or not even a monarch but a president like in the French empire after Napoleon III's fall. In German, this is referred to by "Imperium" or "Empire", or "Reich". The last, however, may also refer to a nation state which is not even a monarchy for some historical reasons. When the German Kaiser abdicated after WW1, the Reich became a federal republic but stuck to the name "Reich ". Of course, it continued to do so after being centralized by the nazis. ____ *) I don't even know what is the exact difference since the eastern Roman emperors from Herakleios onwards used the term "Basileus" which also means king. The translation of foreign titles such as Chinese or Japanese also
More relevantly, empire had the context of an absolutely sovereign authority - at a time when nation-states and their sovereignty didn't really exist - including nominal sovereignty over lesser kings under their orbit. That was why it was called Roman - as they asserted a degree of sovereignty over the entire of Western Europe that Rome had controlled - plus Germanic and Slavic territories that Charlemagne had conquered. This was a serious politico-theological concept to people back then, no matter how ridiculously the Emperor's nominal claims and authorities may seem. Thomas Cromwell expressly justified Henry's role as head of the Church of England on the basis that Britain was an empire (one founded by Brutus of Troy), albeit temporarily under Roman control. Thus Henry had the right to cast off whatever obeisance was felt legally necessary to both the Emperor and the Pope. In reality the English never really accepted the sovereignty of the emperor anyway, and various laws from the medieval era tended to confirm that outside courties etc. had no power in England but it was never fully expressed with such clarity and without room for some kind of residual feudal relation between king and emperor until Thomas Cromwell laid it out. These events were the first stirrings of what eventually because the Westphalian settlement that rendered the HRE, finally, a dead letter. Although this model of empire survived outside Europe well into the 20th century in say, Turkey, Persia or China.
@@minutemansam1214 In Ancient Greek Basileus could mean what we would approximately call a king today though. The Persian king was called Basileus Basileōn or what we would call king of kings or Basileus Megas which is a title Alexander took over after his conquest of the Persian empire. Notably legitimate heritary kings were called basileus in contrast to dictators who had seized power in coups who were usually called tyrannos.
The HRE, despite being a husk of itself after 1648, still deserves credit for lasting roughly 1000 years and being able to adapt through social changes/revolutions.
No it didn't, emperors were in fact crowned left and right for about 110 years after charlemagnes death. Only in 924, after emperor berengars death, did the title become vacant, and only because the pope refused to crown the three roman kings after him. Only then did otto swoop in and take the crown.@@hopeundertheblacksun
fun fact, the German "Heiliges Römisches Reich" may at first glance translate to "Holy Roman Empire" but even without pulling up its latin name, it can be translated as "Sacred Roman Empire" this is because "Heilig" means both "Holy" and "Sacred" in german
Yes, in German language, there is hardly a differentiation between the concepts of “Holy” and “Sacred” - „Heilig“ just means both and we tend to nether differentiate. There is, however, another word: „Sakral“, which comes from the very Latin adjective form of “Sacrum”. With „Sakral“ very sacred things or practices are described, although this word is not often used. An example would be a temple by the Mayas or a sacrificial ritual - these would be called sakral. This idea of “Sacredness” is contained in the German word „Heilig“, but combined with the religious element = therefore „Heiliges Römisches Reich“ awakens connotations of Christian, especially Catholic universality but also the sacred duty of the imperial universal rule
Holy and Sacred basically have the same meaning in English, as well, with sacred being slightly broader and can mean things that are not necessarily related to religion.
in old German dialects i imagine that there certainly may be but it doesn't really matter since nobody would have even considdered how the english would translate it even in the 18th century, back then French and Latin were the closest thing to a lingua franca, even German was more widespread due to the large population of German speakers on the continent.
In ancient languages these two words where still thoroughly distinguished. In Latin we have sacer and sānctus, which are differentiated with different conotations, but also combined into sacrōsānctus. On the other hand, Germanic languages also had multiple words like "weih" (as in modern Weihnachten) and "heilig/holy". I would identify "weih" with "sacer" and "heilig/holy" with "sanctus" for many reasons. For example, "sacrum" as a noun can mean "holy object" or "shrine". The Old Norse Vé and the Old English wēoh and OHG wīh (which come from the same sourse as "weih") have a very similar meaning. For more: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9_(shrine) "Heiliges römisches Reich" might today be the common translation for "Sacrum imperium romanum", but I don't think it was originally called like that. The Latin word likely came first. It might have been called differently in the Old High German period. Apperently "there was a real competition for the right word [for "holy"] between the Anglo-Saxon missionaries in northern Germany and the Celtic preachers coming from Ireland and Scotland who worked in southern Germany." According to this article: www.welt.de/kultur/article135659168/Sprechen-Sie-Christlich.html
@@Jon-mh9lk bruh the "weih" in "weihnachten" means "blessed" we don't call frankincense "weihrauch" because it's holy, it's literally called "blessing-smoke" because that is it's purpose
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 People that are better than others tend to come off as that. Only unskilled losers are truly humble; and they're only so because they're too weak & stupid to be anything but. The average joe reading this comment, for example.
More like 40% Holy (The Empire is Holy in the sense that it was mostly Christian and had a lot of Symbolic Power in the Christian World) 10% Roman (Roman culture was preserved but the application is mostly symbolic and its Romaness is legally dubious) 50% Empire (It is an Empire, its a collection of different states with a diverse population and at times was actually a powerhouse worthy of t name, the Habsburgs at one point has control of the HRE and Spain making it very powerful in the process.) The German part is more like 80% the rest are Italians, Czechs, Hungarians and Belgians.
As a German.. I totally agree.. I love my history .. Most of it... Well, not really... Nothing.. Because then I'm a Nazi 😂 Just kidding.. I'm very proud and I don't think it's good to demonize our history and only talk about it from the Allied point of view. Just because of the 12 dark years.. There was a big difference between Nazis, Germans and Wehrmacht soldiers.. Also, not everything is black and white.. Sure, there was a lot of black.. But Hitler didn't just say stupid things.. Sure he was crazy.. But everything about the Versailles Treaty and that the most important inventions come from the "Aryan" race is more or less correct.. I think we should be prouder and clearly separate the dark 12 years from everything else because we have such an old history and the Nazis just took good old Germanic or German things and interpreted them very dark.. The Nazis invented almost nothing.. As I said, only used things in a dark way like Germany Germany over all.. Was not meant that we stand over all in the original meaning..
Voltaire's quote tells us more about him and contemporary thought that surrounded him than it does the HRE subject matter itself - as is the case with all historical sources 😉
The name doesn't always tell the truth. Take the "peoples republic" of north korea and the "peoples repulic of china", or the former "german democratic republic"... None of them qualify as republic, the two claiming to be of their peoples are not really considering their peoples and there was little democratic about the GDR apart from it's end.
ADDITION: The HRE idolised the Byzantines and copied their building projects and would attempt to marry Eastern Roman Princesses to bring Roman blood and Legitimacy into turn their German Empires. It must be known, they saw themselves as Frankish decendants, not Romans, but creating something even greater to honour God, in the shape of the great Empire of old.
Funnily enough many of the Byzantines they married were not exactly "Roman" or even Greek themselves. Many of the princesses married to HRE emperors and nobles were Greek-Armenian, straight up Armenian, and other ethnicities. I think there was one Georgian, iirc. Plus on the HRE side, there were also the descendents of the Alans and Huns, the former being ethnically Iranians, and the later being "asiatic." The world of the royalty was pretty diverse from an ethnic perspective, moreso than common folk.
@@floridaman318 Even though the ERE was ethically Greek, they were bearers of the legacy of the Roman Empire which hadn’t yet fallen to “barbarians”. There is such a difference as ethnically and culturally. Culturally, I am American. Ethnically, I am Rhine German, English, Scottish, Swiss German, Irish, and Italian, with a very small drop of Native American blood (so small it might not register at all on a dna test). The early modern rivals to the Ottomans weren’t ethnically Persian, but did become culturally. Up until around the start of the world wars, the British monarchy was ethically German, though I assume they saw themselves as British. People of the HRE were not ethnically Roman. They weren’t culturally Roman either. They looked to the legacy of the empire and said “I want to be him”
Very true. If one looks at it as a separate entirely separate of the Roman empire it's history and structure is really Cool. And I bet it would make a fantastic idea for a novel
That's because it is a separate entity of the Roman Empire. Heck, pretty sure they didn't call themselves the 'Holy Roman Empire' until several hundred years after the empire 'formed'. It's a Germanic empire. That took the name 'Roman Empire' because the pope at the time of the empire's foundation didn't like that the current Roman Empire was ruled by a woman(it's petty as hell but pretty typical early Christian history). The reason why the empire was such a mess(map wise at least) was because Germanic leaders have this weird succession condition that instead of the eldest son inheriting everything, they split the lands among themselves. It also didn't help that the church owned their own lands. It's a mess.
I don't know why anyone would take Voltaire seriously, not only was he cringe, he was also, and may God forgive me for uttering this most foul word, a French.
@@sapateirovalentin348 He wasn't, it's just that Voltaire criticized the church (rigthly so) because he found all the stories about God nonsensical and because the members of the church were corrupt as hell and acted more like kings/nobles/generals than priests. That's why freaks here hate Voltaire, that it's, just because he wasn't an insane catholic that wanted to assassinate all protestants or jewish people is the reason why he is so hated among these circles. Time gave Voltaire the reason, we get all kind of pedophilic scandals about the church nowadays and their connection with the italian mafia and politicians of a lot of countries, also the presence of weird sects inside it like Opus Dei, a group made up of wealthy catholic business men that influence politics in places like South America, Spain and Poland. So Voltaire didn't believe in christianity because he saw it as a tool used to by the upper classes to justity their despotic rules and corruption.
@@kitcloudkicker14No, we hate Voltaire since he was a smug idiot who professed blatant distortions of scripture and Church theology among other loony ideas.
@@sapateirovalentin348 Voltraire is like the first redditor in history, whatever you think about r/atheism is what most people back then thought about voltaire. And that is mostly cringe.
You should do a video on either the Russian third Rome thing and or did the Romans consider themselves still technically a Republic under the Senate during the late Roman/Byzantine era, especially after Leo the Wise reformed it?
The charade of Roman Republic continued during the principate but it's safe to say that all notions of the Empire being a Republic were dropped by the time of the dominate. A simple observation to confirm this lies with the color Tyrian purple. Purple was popular among the Roman Emperors for two reasons- one, it was very expensive to source; two, it was associated with royalty since the time of Phoenicians in the bronze age. During the Republic and Early empire, purple was only used during special events such as a Triumph to show the victor general/consul/princeps as someone close to a King- but not quite one- for a single day because during this period the Romans still despised the idea of Kingship. By the Dominate, however, Emperors flaunted the purple which shows that, over the centuries, the Romans had pretty much been successfully eased into the idea of a single man ruling Romania (Romanland) and he was special, almost divine.
@@tlaloqq America isn't the heir to Rome, it is the reancarnation of Rome. Germany and England are heirs to Rome in their own way (England much more since it took over 25% of the entire planet)
To be fair, Third Rome concept was more of a religious concept, since with a fall of Constantinople Moscow became the main center of Orthodox faith, so it's fair, that the Principality would declare itself as a Rome successor, as, from their point of view, being the center of Orthodox faith was vital in order of being the actual successor
I would like to add to your final point by commenting on the kingdom of France during the time of Henry ii of England Massive parts of France were brought under his rule and command only and just through marriages, would this make you not call royaume de France not a kingdom? No! This is quite natural and normal in a feudal system
“I must give you a piece of intelligence that you perhaps already know - namely, that the ungodly arch-villain Voltaire has died miserably like a dog - just like a brute. That is his reward!” -Mozart
Honestly, the best way to make fun of the Holy Roman Empire is to point out that the entire justification for its existence is based on a proven forgery (The Donation of Constantine). I think that's a way funnier and more damning observation than the Voltaire quote.
@@mihailupu5107 Obviously there is a Wikipedia article, but in brief: The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope... it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy
@@mihailupu5107 The Donation of Constantine supposedly dates to the 4th Century. It states that Constantine the Great, before leaving Rome, became extremely ill. However after the Pope cured Constantine of his illness, Constantine granted jurisdiction of the whole Western Empire to the Pope. This donation is what the Pope used to justify crowning Charlemagne. Constantine had given the West to the Pope, and thus the Pope had the right to transfer control of the west from Irene to Charlemagne. Only one problem. The Donation is a forgery. It was not written in the 4th Century despite trying to present itself as such. It was forged somewhere around the 8th Century. The document was not proven to be a hoax until the late 15th Century, although there had been suspicions prior. The Popes at the time knew they had no case. So they forged a fake document to justify crowning Charlemagne Emperor. I just find that really funny. The Holy Roman Empire's entire reason for existing is based on a fake document, that by the 16th Century they *knew* was fraudulent.
@@mihailupu5107 It's a document forged somewhere during the late 8th century AD that allegedly states that when Constantine the Great was moving the capital to Constantinople back in 330 AD, he gave the whole authority over the Western Empire to the Pope. That claim was used by the Catholic church to declare that the sole privilege to declare and dismiss Roman emperors was in Pope's hands.
Italy really slipped from imperial control after the death of Henry VII, whom Dante Alighieri held in high regard as a reformer who came to italy before she knew she needed one. He was the last emperor to really pursue an italian policy, which was cut short by his sudden death in 1313
@@silentsurvivor2082 it is not that we seek to put genders, it's the grammar of our languages that (unlike English or Greek) doesn't have a gender neutral. (In Spanish the "neutral" is "El" which means Him
@@silentsurvivor2082 It is actually pretty traditional: countries, like ships, were called 'she' in English and referred to in the feminine until the 20th century.
@@forthrightgambitia1032yes there are some really interesting conventions regarding the grammatical sex of objects. In the German language, ships are always feminine, cars masculine and restaurants/hotels neuter.
I think a lot of the perceived ridiculousness of medieval claims to Romanness has to do with a modern bias in favor of "classical Rome", whereas the medievals understandably viewed Rome in terms of its later, Christian phase. If we take a look at the late Roman empire, its relationship towards religion, even at things such as architecture* etc., we see a lot more similarities and even continuity between Rome and the post-Roman order than if we were to compare, let's say, the HRE or 14th Century Byzantium to the Rome of Caesar. In this light, these claims of empire translation lose a considerable chunk of their preposterousness. (One simply has to accept that elegant columns, paganism and all the "glory" would have been lost anyway at that point.) (Not to forget, many important elements of the medieval order (the papacy, the Catholic church and its organisational structure) were crafted when the empire was still around.) *Just compare late Roman or early post-Roman constructions such as San Vitale with Charlemagnes palace in Aachen, or how the "Byzantine style" 5th century architecture spread across Southern Eastern Europe for centuries to come.
Part of the problem is also that the medieval empire never had the high level of centralization, urban culture, and administrative sophistication that the ancient Roman Empire had. Medieval states were far less effective, more fragmented entities without a real capital city, ruled by feudal "primus inter pares" kings with itinerant courts. This in itself makes the term "Empire" almost sound like a hollow claim and much more like a paper construct than the "true" Roman Empire had ever been.
Shallowness of understanding is being kind. Perhaps it's better to state that it's not a good idea to let your enemies sum up your history. And a student of history should always keep this in mind. People have agendas, their agendas impose a lens upon your view of a subject.
It was all of those things especially during the middle ages. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa literally launched a military invasion of northern Italy because the local nobles and burghers were ignoring imperial edicts. Imperial authority in those days was very real and was enforced throughout the Empire.
Just change your religion to other christian denominations. Or outright Islam. Oh god, Islamic Cologne would be soooo in line with current time events!
@@alifkazeryu8228 this meme is dead, go to Germany yourself and see that it's still distinctly German. Berlin, like all big cities, is more international. But places like Bavaria are almost too German lol
I may not really give a shit on whether people see the HRE as Roman or not, but I will definitely call anyone who uses Voltaires quote a pretentious dimwit now.
Sometimes Voltaire quotes are true and accurate and cutting. Its pretentious and dinwitted to automatically dismiss anyone quoting Voltaire. He really does have a lot of awesome quotes. Theres a reaosn people still quote him to this day.
I may be an Orthodox Byzaboo (though I love Western Rite Orthodoxy if you know what that is), but this video was like crack candy to me. I normally love succinct videos, but I wouldn't have minded if this dragged on for an hour even; in fact I just wanted more. And it breaks my heart that Napoleon is responsible for the death blow to the HRE. Alas, sic transit gloria mundi.
@@ssteelemember that while the Italian city-states which had long escaped the influence of the Holy Roman Empire, fought Constantinople and its Emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor always tried to defend the Orthodox Christians aganist the Turks. Even when the Byzantine Empire had been long dead and Ottoman rule in the Balkans strengthend, the Habsburgs kept on fighting the Turks until approximately the year 1900, lastly annexing Bosnia-Herzegowina from the Ottoman Empire, until they finally joined one side in the Great War The Kings of France, however, often betrayed the Roman-German Emperors and allied with the Turks to fight the Empire
@@deutschermichel5807 Sounds to me like a romanticized version of events. The HRE rulers didn't give a shit about orthodox Christians, they only acted when the Turks encroached on their own borders (including Hungary). They never provided guarantees or protection of any sort for the Christian populations of the Ottomans. Even the Russians can claim they did more than that. If anything, by providing zero assistance during the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and by implicitly supporting the Fourth Crusade (which also included crusaders from HRE who faced absolutely no repercussions), the HRE rulers did the opposite of defending anyone Orthodox. A policy that continued even after the death of HRE with suppression of the Balkan populations of Austria-Hungary, which together with its arrogance, led to its downfall.
It's really sad that someone makes conclusions about a literal Empire from a cheap cliché by a cheap someone like Voltaire. But it's the absolute state of "knowledge" nowadays it seems...
"In elementray school I didn't like literature because it had simple motals and was useless. In highschool I started loving politics because they have simple morals and are useless" - the ultimate guide to anything related to my youtube usage
I never knew much about the HRE but I always knew that smug line was an oversimplification or even outright misinterpretation. And the more I learn the more the smugness irked me. How I understood it was; That it was Holy: a Pope said it was holy, and at this time he's the only arbiter of holiness, and it's the nation itself that's holy no one individual so no takesees backsees. It was Roman; they link back to Charlemagne who was all about "romanness." It was an Empire; or empire-like, large, multiple ethinc groups, "colinized" eastward. So, Voltaire is the guy that started it. Smh.
HRE Existed for a long time, by voltaires time it was probably an apt description of the state at that time. I agree it’s a bit of a smug oversimplification, and it shouldn’t be the only thing someone should know about it
Holy Roman Emperor Otto III is actually quite fondly remebered in Poland. He visited Poland in the year 1000 as a pilgrimage to St. Adalbert's relics, and meeting duke Boleslav I the Brave promised restoration of the Roman Empire as a federation of Germany, France, Italy & Western Slavdom with Bolesław as king of the latter (Poland, Lusatia, Czechia, Slovakia, Red Ruthenia). Sadly Otto III died not long after, but Boleslav later waged wars with the new emperor for some of this lands.
Would love to see a video on Theodoric the Great and the Ostrogothic kingdom with this idea. I’ve held the idea for awhile that he was a de facto Roman Emperor as well.
I think their claim to Roman Empire is based on the funny hat man forging some letter. However funny hat man had nothing to do with the Roman Empire either
I think I understand it now... it's all about the name! • The HRE was *Holy* . But in the sense of considering itself sacred enough in the Christian World as to grant their leaders the religious authority needed to stand up against the Papacy and represent Christianity. Making itself seem more like a *Theocracy* • The HRE was *Roman* . But in the sense of it being a bunch of Germans that sometimes protected Rome and Italy and liked to roleplay as the old empire every now and then. They are like *Germanic Romans* , so I'll give it a pass. • And the HRE was an *Empire* . But not in the sense of being a politically unified structure under the rule of an absolute ruler, (that's a modern concept) but more as a amalgamation of diferent states, cultures and ethnic groups that shared a common goal and worked together... mostly. Just like a *Confederacy* ! Having said that I propose to settle this argument by *fucking them over* like we did with those Greeks and come up with an equally laughable name as to avoid further confusion. So I propose we call them: *THE THEOCRATIC GERMANO-ROMAN CONFEDERACY* Any objections?
While your assessment of the Roman-German element is correct, I think your terms "theocracy" and "confederacy" are wrong: Firstly, the relations between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papal States have evolved and changed a lot in the millenium of itʼs existance. Whereas in the beginning, the Popes were inferior to the Frankish Kings and in need of their support, leading to the coronation of Charlemagne as an ultimate “Thank-You”, the Church became increasingly important in politics later on, with the spread of spiritual rulers in the HRE: In order to fight back the might of the tribal *confederacies* in Germany, the King granted many cities and territories to bishops and monastaries, so that nobles couldn't marriage and inherit them. This strategy helped decreasing the force of the tribal rulers, in favour of the king. It, however, backfired whenever the Emperor and the Church were not on good terms. In the Holy Roman Empire, the King was elected by the vassals, both Spiritual and Temporal. So when the Pope excommunicated the Emperor, all the princely bishops and abbots became a threat to the Empire. In order to solve this problem, the Kings simply invested their own bishops, which in turn angered the Popes and lead to the Investiture Conflict, which was finally ended with the “Henricium sive Calixtinum”. From then on, the HRE and the Papal States had more often good than bad relations. The Emperor was seen as the temporal head of all christian realms, whereas the Pope was the spiritual head of all Church. With the Reformation, many German princes introduced the Lutheran faith in order to strengthen their control over the religion. Similarly, in England, the King became the head of the Church. - but would you call the Queen or King Charles III. a theocratic ruler? No. Therefore the HRE waa no theocracy, but rather a feudal monarchy. Thus, secondly, the Holy Roman Empire was a feudal monarchy, rather than a confederacy: A confederacy, or “Bundesstaat” in German, is when multiple people or states join together into a bigger state whilst all keeping some autonomy. The best example might be the United States of America, composing of 50 states, all having their own state legislatures and governeurs. But, together, they have the Congress and the President. These federal institutions are not superior because of some hierarchy, but because they are the “first among equals”. Same thing in Germany, where 16, in the past 25 and before that 39 states are united into a (Con-)Federation. The Federal Parliament (Bundestag) is not “higher” than some state legislatures because of some divine hierarchy or the Grace of God, but because it is a common institution of the Federation. This has nothing to do with the HRE, which was a monarchy. Through the Grace of God, the Emperor *ruled* his subjects, the princes of the lesser territories. They understood themselves to be inferior to His Majesty not because they decided so in some contract, but because of Divine Right. An interesting example is the East Frankish Kingdom in the early 10th century: At this point, the ruling royal dynasty have been the Carolingians for a hundred years. But suddenly, the Royal Family died out with last king, a child, dying himself childless. The kingdom was divided into four big duchies. Practically, the four dukes could have been independent now and rule on their own now. But they didn't. Instead they voted and elected one of their own, Konrad, the Duke of Franconia to be king. This happened not only in the face of the threat by the Hungarians, which every one of the four dukes weren't poweful enough on their own to defend against, but because they thought and firmly believed that there has to be a king, a monarch above them. This hierarchy remained during the entire millenium in the HRE. Always, the king stood above the other lords and princes and dukes, who all swore personal loyalty to the monarch
@@deutschermichel5807 For real now, I agree with you and I *don't* think the name of the HRE should actually change. I was just joking on how the name implies things that are not obvious at first sight and also poking fun on how in many times in history we changed the name of historical nations to avoid "confusion". But I do appreciate your text a lot, medieval history is something I'm getting more in depth now and new knowledge is always welcomed.
@Steel it was and it was condemned. Marsellius of Padua was excommunicated for suggesting it, as we're the Holy Roman Emperor's who tried it. Absolute Monarchies are very much a product of the enlightenment. People keep creating them in their video games because 1) that's what our idea of a monarchy is 2) people like to simulate having that level of control and 3) ai tends to be dumb
People often have such a biased view of the word 'empire' that it gets on my nerves. The simplest way to put it is that the HRE was an empire because that was what the title was called. But even in other ways it was similar to other empires. At the end of the day, medieval/early modern European politics was confusing as hell, but the nature of the HRE as an empire was one of the simplist concepts, as a realm that was above the rank as a kingdom. That's it.
As a German history student I can say that all of my professors in medieval history would literally laugh at the Voltaire quote if presented to them when discussing the medieval HRE. It's mostly amateur historians from America or other European countries who get the HRE completely wrong. Just talking for 5 minutes to a professional German historian, who in his entire life did nothing but analysing and investigating medieval Germany, will prove them wrong.
ah yes, let a German talk about his heritage, he certain will not be biased at all about it. Europeans have NEVER been biased about their ancestors, unlike those silly Americans.
@@officaldoylefoodreviews7515 What is the difference between a German history professor and a Chinese one, for example? Even though he's German, he still studied
@@filbagano7946We Germans do have nothing to do with the sacking of Rome. The Goths sacked Rome. The Goths were only one Germanic tribe. The Goths never were a part of Germany. So we canʼt be blamed for this
The Hre was an empire because all German states were legally bound to support the Habsburgs in the case of a reichskrieg. This worked during the Nine Years’ War, War of Spanish Succession, War of Polish Succession, War of First Coalition, and War of Second Coalition. During the Seven Years’ War, an internal reichskrieg was declared against Prussia, so most German states turned against Prussia.
There was a legal distinction between an imperial war (against foreign states) and an imperial execution (against inner states) but generally speaking you're correct.
Legally bound yeah, but a lot of the times not only they refused the call, but also fought against the empire, notably some german states allying with france during the War of spanish succession.. By the way, the states themselves could simply refuse to aid, declaring neutrality, as it happened many times in those wars you cited.
6:23 As someone who's quite familiar with and has always been interested in the theological aspects behind the statue in the book of Daniel, there's something I'm surprised has been omitted here. You're right that the statue had symbolic metallic components consisting of gold (Babylon), silver (Persia), bronze (Macedonia), and iron (Rome), but you've missed the last component - the feet of clay mixed with iron, which many interpret to be another power that succeeds Rome. Such interpretations of who this mystery kingdom succeeding Rome is have ranged from (hilariously) the EU to (maybe more understandably) the Anglo-American powers of today. So I'm curious how the feet of clay mixed with iron representing another power were interpreted in the role of the Holy Roman Empire. For those interested, the feet of iron mixed with the clay is typically seen as an entity that still exists today but is split into two (much in the same way that the iron legs of the statue are seen as representative of east and west Rome). This is because at the end of the dream of the statue in Daniel, the entire statue is destroyed when a large stone strikes it at its feet. The stone is interpreted as the everlasting kingdom of God which, unlike the mortal empires of metal, is infinite and will never fall.
Yeah, good point. "Fifth Monarchism" was (is) certainly a thing. I've omitted it because as with most thing in history, if you dig a little deeper there is another interesting thing, which will be great to discuss. And I didn't have enough time to make an hour-long video.
@@RomabooRamblings Aye, understandable. It can get rather complex focusing on the exact theological interpretations and discrepancies. Btw, great video! I think I still have something of an issue with the 'Roman' aspect to the HRE, but the 'Holy' and 'Empire' parts are perfectly understandable. The forgery of the 'Donation of Constantine' is rather damning imo to the states quote on quote 'legitimacy', and it's formation is akin to France seizing control of Washington while the USA is divided and proclaiming itself to be the new America.
@@RomabooRamblings Peace be with you in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ. Viva La Catholica. The Holy Roman Empire is just like the modern European Union.
Perhaps the iron mixed with clay represents 2 empires that co-existed since why would they be mixed? If I say what nation it is, it would be a nation that challenged Rome, and that is Carthage. But I don't know much about the book of Daniel to begin with but I just wanted to suggest an idea, or maybe it represents the split of the Roman Empire? But as I said I am not an expert on these stuff.
Greatest thing i like about the HRE was that it was a loose monarchical confederacy where each internal state could basically mind its own business alone. Nowadays this is anathema for the mega "democractic", "republican" states of the world.
I’ve got an Italian name spelled german style and my family is catholic They came to the United States after the breakup of the “empire” HRE definitely was holy, Roman and an empire
Sorry but I still dont get in what way the HRE is any way the successor of the old Roman Empire of antiquity besides the pope making a political move by crowning Charlemagne as Roman emperor, but I dont see how the Catholic Church has any authority over deciding who's emperor or not. The way I see it the Western Roman empire ended when the senate and other ancient political and legal institutions got disbanded or crumbled in the 5th tilll 7th centuries.
I love how in the movie Valkyrie, as Klaus Von Staffenburg was being executed by firing squad for trying to assassinate Hitler, his dying epitaph is: “Long live sacred Germany!” He was definitely harkening back to this idea of the Sacred Roman Empire, which I really like the sound of and appreciate the perspective here!
I like this channel, and watched some videos. But I found the argument about how the HRE was Roman to be lacking or unconvincing. The population didn't identify themselves as Romans, as compared to the Byzantines.
"Wait, it's ALL Rome?" "Always has been." The more Roman pretenders we recognize, the more glorious the wet dream of a hypothetical reunited Roman Empire including all territories by all successors at any time will be! Jokes aside, I read up on Otto III in particular, a really fascinating historical figure. If he lived longer and had successors continueing his legacy, medieval history would have looked VERY different. His policy of supporting the christianity in the Bohemia as well as the young kingdoms of Poland and Hungary was aimed at creating a crhistian family of nations under the banner of Rome. With his attempts at curbing the power of the Papacy (particularily exposing the Donation of Constantine as a forgery) and strong connection to the ERE would probably avoid the crusades, and instead a coalition of german, italian, polish, and hungarian troops would launch an expidition to aid the besieged ERE. The HRE and it's Confoederatii would also pose a valuable trading partner and source for mercenaries for the ERE. If this were to last, the mongol invasion would probably face fiercer resistance from a Central European bloc as well. And, a man can dream, perhaps, by some fortunate whim of fate, the crowns of the HRE and ERE would eventually end up on the same head.
one objection that I have is that the HRE coulnd't be a roman empire, since the roman empire was still alive in the east. The only way it would make sense to me that the HRE is a roman empire is if they bowed to the eastern romans. Otherwise, they're just mimicing
I always had settled this as: Holy: Meaning Consecrated, which is dedicated through ritusls exclusively to a specific religious use, or to one specific God or religion. . The HRE whas specifically dedicated to this matter. Didn't knew the worldview of thst time showed in this video, which adds further more weight to thr claim. Roman, most of its political entanglement happened in Rome. As well as the entirety of its religious authority. Hence Roman. Also, the ruling authority of the city of Rome crowned the emperor as Emperor of the Romans. Let alone the understanding of the locals of such idea. Empire, (same argument as in the video) So. Yea, holy roman empire.
When the HRE was formally dissolved in 1806, an incredible amount of people that inhabited its territories at the time were absolutely terrified by the news. As weak as it may have become by that time, it was nonetheless a political entity that brought stability, a sort of sense of belonging, and military protection, as unsure as it may have been. After the dissolution, so many people argued that the Austrian Emperor had no legal right to dissolve the millennial institution, and so many others felt lost or desperate at the loss of such an extremely influential entity.
Maybe this is an April Fools (although it's past 12:00 where I live so it doesn't count, as we practice it), but on the assumption that this is a good faith argument I think you're a bit off the mark here. Holy: So, in effect, this could be summed up as being holy "because I say so". Sure, the HRE's emperors participated in the crusades, and did engage with the reformation (although how "good" their faith was is debatable). But many of Europe's major states did the former, and England, in the latter case, has the better claim to be "Holy/Sacred" since it's king did declare himself the official head of the Church & maintained that position much more strongly than any emperor. That said, if you take "Holy" as being consecrated by the Pope I think that's valid. You rejected this version, but it seems to me the strongest one in terms of legitimacy. The Pope is God's representitive, and the HRE (or rather, it's ruler) was given legitimacy as King of the Romans by the Pope, being a holy vassal by extension. This would mean that when relations were poor that "holiness" was much weaker, but for a Catholic empire then assent by the Pope is surely the only legitimate source of holiness. Roman: A bit stronger than it's claim to holiness, but other than the enforcement of Roman Law in the late 15th century (more than 500 years after it's founding) it seems to lack many distinctly *Roman* political structures. Sure, some emperors were keen on using Roman titles, but Philip II was know as "Augustus" & he hardly has a claim on Romaness. There's the obvious lack of Latin & control over Italy that hurt a pretention at being Rome, but even if we take it as more a spiritual monikor, then it really is just play-acting. There was not fully developed national identity (though Maximilan I did make several allusions to a Germanic nation) there was national identiity. Bohemia, for example, may have been part of the HRE but it's people & rulers were Czechs. The common tounge was Czech, and they did not see themselves as "Roman". And whilst this may have also been true for parts of the real Roman empire, it was not true for the core parts of it. But Bohemia was as core to the HRE as Greece was the Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire gets a claim to Romaness in part because it's people thought that they were Roman. But the same cannot be said for the miriad constituant states of the HRE. Empire: This is the only part that actually fits. I agree that Voltaire only added it to make the quip sound better. Even so, it was not a particuarly centralised one. Unlike various contemporary empires throughout it's lifetime, the ERE, the Angevin, the Ottoman, it was a looser collection of states whose rulers owed less direct fealty to their overlord. This does depend on who & when, of course, but although the HRE has a well-known & well documented political system it was still relatively weak beurocratically speaking. Some emperors centralised it, under others that centeralisation slipped. This doesn't discount it from being an empire, of course, but by Voltaires' comparison to contemperary states it was much less so. In short, the HRE could be considered Holy, Roman & an Empire, but only if you are generous with the definition of the former two, which really boils down to your definition of the words, and the strength of the claim to all three varies wildly throughout its history. Lastly, any put-down of the HRE is a put-down of the Germans, which can only be a good thing in my view.
Other than that, you're correct. Ferdinand I was a chill dude. And it's all thanks to him that there were no significant religious wars in the HRE until the rise of Calvinism and the Thirty Years' War.
I see many people fighting about what is ''roman'', ''byzantine'', byzantines being mainly Greeks etc. Guys if you had a time machine and went to ancient world lets say in 700 B.C or 100 B.C and said ''hi i am roman'' people would thought that you are literally from the city of rome in central Italy, but if then with the same machine went to 250 A.D or 700 A.D if you said that you are roman, people wouldnt think that you are from the city of Rome (if even you were) but you were a citiznen of the roman empire regardless if your nationality was south italian, Greek, Armenian etc. After almost 1000 years, being ''roman'' had become a supranational cultural identity, a title, something similar today of being European or American, with the difference of having even greater cultural and religious meaning, for example you were the reprensetitive of Gods kingom on earth, you were different of other barbarians pagans and infidels etc.
Holy is completely subjective and only if you're catholic, but then again considering the Investiture controversy and many other conflicts even that is dodgy. Roman it absolutely was not from a Roman perspective. They were neither Roman citizens, nor did they embody the Roman system Or law (no matter how much cosmetic flair they tried to give it) not to mention that the Popes were NEVER in charge of Roman succesion, in absolutely no piece of Roman law or precedent was the Pope in charge of choosing an Emperor when one already existed!(none of these points were addressed, not that they can be addressed) Also it should be noted that it was the Job of the Roman State to decide and hand citizenship, that state already existed in the East. An empire it was, a very soon hella decentralized one but it was. All in all we can conclude, debatably Holy, Not Roman and decentralized Empire. Voltaire is wrong but so are you.
Personally I find it too germanic to be Roman, too decentralized to be an empire and ever since the pope stop crowing their emperors I find them too much like france or portugal to be called holy unless most of europe was already holy in which case the title is redundant.
An argument can be made that the HRE was indeed Holy, and an Empire. I disagree, but I will be generous and say a case could be made. But the HRE was absolutely, under no condition, Roman. They simply were not. The only successor to the Roman Empire were the Byzantines. Period.
@@deutschermichel5807 most people in the Late Roman Republic and throughout the majority of Imperial Rome did not speak Latin. With the exception of Senatorial speeches and written laws, Latin wasn't widely used outside of Latium itself. Greek was the majority speaking languages of southern Italy and the eastern holdings
@@deutschermichel5807 I didn't say nobody was Roman. Everyone who was part of the Roman Empire was, for a time, Roman. But since the Roman Empire didn't collapse it just got a new name, nobody that lived outside of the Eastern Roman Empire could possibly be Roman. Rome finished as a cultural and political entity in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople
I highly recommend to read Peter Wilson's book about HRE. It explains that decentralized structure of empire was the source of its durability and agility as well as Liberty (at least by standards of that time).
Yes the Holy Roman Empire's Dukes and Princes claimed the „Deutsche Libertät” (German Liberty) for themselves in order to protect their regional interests aganist the globalist interests of the Emperor
I know the book, I have it, it's very interesting and it explains in detail all the thousand years of the HRE, the only bad thing is that it's really huge to read. but it fits 1000 pages for 1000 years of history.
Voltaire was indeed clever but he also had a poor knowledge of history - he wrote a poem comparing Louis XV to Emperor Trajen - he disgraced himself in the eyes of the King by such ignorance - cause Trajen was a well known Christian killer - duhh Voltaire
I hate how much Voltaire is considered such a massive philosopher from my country. Like some of his works are cool but he brings more shame to France than anything else.
As a German i agree.. Love French and German history.. Our countries both experienced great glory and shaped this world.. What has become of these countries and of tradition.. Truly sad my French friend.
I will defend Voltaire insofar as the context of his writing allows. By the time of Voltaire, the HRE was fragmented and weak. The Emperor had lost much of his divine and secular authority within the empire. So I've always seen the quote as reflecting the contemporary state of the HRE, not the historical state.
which is why you had two Empires (actually more but the others were less significant) with good and not so good arguments of being the successor. Its not a black and white thing which could fully be solved ;)
People think Charlamagne was not Roman since he was a Frank forget that Aurelian, one of the greatest emperors of Rome, was Illyrian who are the ancestors of the Albanians today
@@Dragoncam13 Tiberius III had Gothic ancestry, Leo III Arab, Leo IV Khazar, there were many "barbarian" eastern emperors especially if one counts maternal descent aswell
Good Video, Really nothing in it I disagree with aside from the Argument of Roman. I am camp Rome fell in 1453 with the Siege of Constantinople and the HRE had Rome in its name, But Roman they were not. They may have Personified their *ideal* of Rome as the Sacrum Imperium, But that's not Rome, that's a Medieval persons conception of the Idea of Rome.
13 year old Reddit history meme kids who smell like piss have soiled the reputation of the HRE on the internet by reciting Voltaire’s quote a million times over.
I disagree with Voltaire about the "Empire" statement, it was indeed an empire, but not Roman in any sense. The holy title is a German affair, I don't support neither deny it.
Actually Roman? Right. That's why it was mostly... German. 😅 And never was completely subjugated by the real Roman Empire.😂 And didn't last as long as other provinces as Roman.
I like that this argument is addressed in the video regarding what 'Roman' meant in the mind of medievals and so many dumbasses on here still use it because it doesn't fit their conceptions of what Romaness is.
Voltaire has been really quiet since this video dropped.
top 10 intellectuals Voltaire was too afraid to diss
Uh, Voltaire is dead, idiot. I swear some people are so dumb these days.
Racistaire is arguably the most overated intellectual of modern history.
Maybe voltaire's ghost might want to comment?
Voltaire was right.
“Controversial and serious video posted on April 1st and passed on as a joke at first glance” is my favorite video genre
The fact that he was genuine blew my mind
dunno, for me it was posted on the 2nd of April lmao
Yup
I saw the name of this video and then noticed it was released in April. Had a thought it would be an epic April fool’s joke
And here we are.
This has to be satire then, because no one can be this dumb.
Voltaire was just jealous that he was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire.
I mean it was.
He was a neolatin though.
Funnily enough there could be some truth to that claim considering that the French were envious of the titles, crown and diplomatic + religious influences of the HRE ever since its inception. All of that has its roots in the Western vs Eastern Frankish Kingdom rivalry.
_no u_
- Voltaire
If Voltaire were alive today, he'd be a Redditor
Adam Ruins Everything is the modern Voltaire.
Tbf he was shitposting there
@@AUniqueHandleName444That’s giving Adam Comb-over way too much credit.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe I think the problem was giving Voltaire too much credit.
My Man died from Copium.💀
As the HRE PR manager I have two things to say:
Thank you.
How much do I owe you for your service?
million Reichsmarks.
Lmao
Stay away from large bodies of water
@@rreee.rrrooroo5626 💀💀💀💀💀 what a good piece of advice.
Frederick, as a duke of Bohemia give me my Royal title already 😠
In all seriousness, it's just unreasonable to judge the HRE as something that didn't evolve and change over its millenium long existence. There were times it very much did live up to its name, and there were times where it was far closer to the Voltaire quote. Take any point where you can go 1,000 years forward or backwards in the Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire and it'll look vastly different, with government vastly differently structured.
Yet the point of the video still stands - HRE consistently was holy, roman and held 3 kingdom titles.
@@arsray7285yes, and the imperial title was so prestigous, that Emperor Francis II. needed to pay with prestige to destroy the title in 1806. He even created another empire-tier title beforehand so that he could switch main title because you can't destroy your main title
@@deutschermichel5807 I see, a men of culture.
@@deutschermichel5807 the people skills diplomatic play of 1806.
Meanwhile the EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE, was constantly Holy, Roman and an empire for all of it's history, not a republic at one time and a kingdom at another, always it was a Holy Roman Empire, which g*rms in their anger and frustration of still being barbarians, called them greeks rather than ROMANS
Trouble with HRE is kinda the same as the Ottomans and their image of being the "sick man of Europe". People only remember them in the state of the final decline, not the long and glorious past
Same phenomenon as the Habsburg Empire; armchair historians go way too hard on the Ottoman Empire because it doesn't fit into the modern ideal of a nation-state
Ottomans is a good example. The undisputed most powerful empire in the world by far during the 1500s. Conquered half of Eastern Europe to Vienna and Kyiv, and south to Ethiopia and even Zanzibar. West to Morocco, east to Iran and beyond. Colonies in Indonesia and Western China, huge trade routes. Was the main reason why Europe had to turn west to America. Center of art, culture, and learning for centuries, with cutting edge technology and a lot of religious tolerance. Yet most people will only know it as "WWI sick guy lolol". Even in WWI they did tremendously well, recapturing the Caucasus, Egypt, and resisting the two most powerful states in the world and massive rebellion for a good six years, and even managed to get some concessions from Britain and France in return.
@@precariousworlds3029 Center of art, culture and learning? Lmao the Ottomans were never good at art, the Europeans at the time perfected art and produced artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci, Ottoman art pales in comparison. And what learning, the Ottomans refused to adopt the printing press which made education harder
@@theotheagendashill818 A lot of previous scholarly works from the Islamic world and Silk Road were introduced into Europe by the Ottomans, including the rediscovery of many classical texts from Roman and Greek antiquity. The stability the empire provided in comparison to the chaos of Post-1204 Byzantium allowed for this.
Just look at some of the Ottoman Art and Architecture in this period, like the Blue Mosque, mosaics and calligraphy. It's incredible.
You forget about one thing which makes me, as a German, actually quite proud of it: Since the HRE was at some point, mostly because of its (political) fragmentation & organization in general, not able to pursue an expansionistic political agenda anymore, this led ultimatively to its downfall by the - yes, let's call them out - french, it remains as a very peaceful entity which focused on keeping the (internal) peace and rule of law.
Comparing to Spain, Portugal or England and their genocides and mess all along the Americas during the modern times, I really think this has paid off until today.
Regarding the rule of law: Certainly a very German trait until today and although very modified ofc, the origins of our body of laws lies within its Roman roots - unlike the Anglo-Saxon one.
It’s crazy how several US presidents had actual opinions on the HRE as a fellow political entity, even some while still in office.
Crazier is the USA was a close ally of the country which ultimately destroyed the HRE, Napoleonic France.
In fact we joined Napoleon in one of his Coalition Wars.
In America we call it the War of 1812.
@@omarali262Rome isn't still in charge?
Ive seen all of my Presidents bow down to the Pope so I'm skeptical its ended at the time of Napoleon.
I mean 7/9 of the Supreme Court is Catholic and the President is Catholic.
I think they're just quieter now but definitely still here...
I say "quieter" but I am implying sneaky slimy Jesuits.
I want to be clear.
@@ChristinaFromTH-cammate, the catholics have no power in the US. In the end, Judea won
@@ChristinaFromTH-camLOL if you think Catholics are overrepresented in the corridors of government wait until you see this other group
Among all the three Reichs, HRE was the only one that came closest to a thousand year Reich
If we go off Charlemagne, it WAS a 1000 year Reich.
byzantium/ Eastern Roman empire?
@@rompeltodo3970 byzantium wasn't a german empire
@@MartNM yeah i missread that sorry
it was 30 years away if you count east francia
Funnily enough, in Spanish. The Holy Roman Empire is called the "Sacro Imperio Romano".
Which has literally the same meaning as the latin name, so this misconception never spread in the Hispanic world.
I'd even say Iberian. It's the same with Portuguese, the sole difference is we call it Império.
@@LukeSky2207 Based Iberia strikes again
in italian it's "Sacro Romano Impero"
In hungarian we just call it the german-roman empire.
@@fureszadam3160 Another name for it in Spanish is "Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico" (so Holy Roman Germanic Empire).
So we're still on point
9:18 depicting others as Adam Conover is more unflattering than using Wojaks.
the proto wojak. protojak
@@FlameQwert protwojak uwu
The amount of absolute idiotic fools that still take him even remotely seriously is still extremely . . . unfortunate, to say the least.
I'm just playing games, I know that's Plaastice Loooove
Your research done about the holy part is impressive and imo quite accurate, well done
*The Holy Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years, making it one of the longest-running empires in history.*
It confuses me how much people tend to forget that.
Partially due to its very loose nature, it didn’t really have a need for its member states to overthrow it
@@chiveschivian9965 But could very well have been destroyed earlier by outside invaders if it was as weak as people made it out to be.
It was an important point in Nazi propaganda. They wanted their "Third Reich" to last a thousand years like the HRE.
It wasn't an empire.
@@zetsubou9780 So what is your arbitrary definition of an empire? My guess is that yours will exclude basically every single empire ever. The most used definition of an empire is "An extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority", no one matches the description better than the Holy Roman Empire.
The English word "empire" is actually ambiguous. In German we have different words like "
"Kaisertum", "Kaiserreich", "Reich", "Imperium" (from Latin) and "Empire" (from English).
▪︎At one hand, "empire" means a state governed by a monarch who is called an emperor rather than a king*), no matter its size. This is what "Kaiserreich" refers to, in rarer cases "Kaisertum" as well but the latter rather stands for the institution of an emperor.
▪︎At the other hand, a state is called an empire if it's very large and exceeds the nation state, for instance by a state having colonies. The head of this state _may_ be an emperor but also a king or not even a monarch but a president like in the French empire after Napoleon III's fall.
In German, this is referred to by "Imperium" or "Empire", or "Reich". The last, however, may also refer to a nation state which is not even a monarchy for some historical reasons. When the German Kaiser abdicated after WW1, the Reich became a federal republic but stuck to the name "Reich ". Of course, it continued to do so after being centralized by the nazis.
____
*) I don't even know what is the exact difference since the eastern Roman emperors from Herakleios onwards used the term "Basileus" which also means king.
The translation of foreign titles such as Chinese or Japanese also
More relevantly, empire had the context of an absolutely sovereign authority - at a time when nation-states and their sovereignty didn't really exist - including nominal sovereignty over lesser kings under their orbit. That was why it was called Roman - as they asserted a degree of sovereignty over the entire of Western Europe that Rome had controlled - plus Germanic and Slavic territories that Charlemagne had conquered.
This was a serious politico-theological concept to people back then, no matter how ridiculously the Emperor's nominal claims and authorities may seem. Thomas Cromwell expressly justified Henry's role as head of the Church of England on the basis that Britain was an empire (one founded by Brutus of Troy), albeit temporarily under Roman control. Thus Henry had the right to cast off whatever obeisance was felt legally necessary to both the Emperor and the Pope. In reality the English never really accepted the sovereignty of the emperor anyway, and various laws from the medieval era tended to confirm that outside courties etc. had no power in England but it was never fully expressed with such clarity and without room for some kind of residual feudal relation between king and emperor until Thomas Cromwell laid it out. These events were the first stirrings of what eventually because the Westphalian settlement that rendered the HRE, finally, a dead letter. Although this model of empire survived outside Europe well into the 20th century in say, Turkey, Persia or China.
In Medieval Greek Basileus had the meaning of Emperor. Regas was the term for king in Medieval Greek, derived from Latin rex.
@@minutemansam1214
I didn't know, THX.
@@minutemansam1214 In Ancient Greek Basileus could mean what we would approximately call a king today though. The Persian king was called Basileus Basileōn or what we would call king of kings or Basileus Megas which is a title Alexander took over after his conquest of the Persian empire. Notably legitimate heritary kings were called basileus in contrast to dictators who had seized power in coups who were usually called tyrannos.
We don't use Empire in german.
The HRE, despite being a husk of itself after 1648, still deserves credit for lasting roughly 1000 years and being able to adapt through social changes/revolutions.
Not 1000 years
@@hopeundertheblacksunFrom 800 to 1800s, 1000 years.
@@LordVader1094 it ceased existing after the death of Charlemagne and was only re instated by Otto the great in the 10th century.
This is late but it did symbolically survive for a bit until Otto the great
No it didn't, emperors were in fact crowned left and right for about 110 years after charlemagnes death. Only in 924, after emperor berengars death, did the title become vacant, and only because the pope refused to crown the three roman kings after him. Only then did otto swoop in and take the crown.@@hopeundertheblacksun
fun fact, the German "Heiliges Römisches Reich" may at first glance translate to "Holy Roman Empire" but even without pulling up its latin name, it can be translated as "Sacred Roman Empire"
this is because "Heilig" means both "Holy" and "Sacred" in german
Yes, in German language, there is hardly a differentiation between the concepts of “Holy” and “Sacred” - „Heilig“ just means both and we tend to nether differentiate. There is, however, another word: „Sakral“, which comes from the very Latin adjective form of “Sacrum”. With „Sakral“ very sacred things or practices are described, although this word is not often used. An example would be a temple by the Mayas or a sacrificial ritual - these would be called sakral. This idea of “Sacredness” is contained in the German word „Heilig“, but combined with the religious element = therefore „Heiliges Römisches Reich“ awakens connotations of Christian, especially Catholic universality but also the sacred duty of the imperial universal rule
Holy and Sacred basically have the same meaning in English, as well, with sacred being slightly broader and can mean things that are not necessarily related to religion.
in old German dialects i imagine that there certainly may be but it doesn't really matter since nobody would have even considdered how the english would translate it even in the 18th century, back then French and Latin were the closest thing to a lingua franca, even German was more widespread due to the large population of German speakers on the continent.
In ancient languages these two words where still thoroughly distinguished.
In Latin we have sacer and sānctus, which are differentiated with different conotations, but also combined into sacrōsānctus.
On the other hand, Germanic languages also had multiple words like "weih" (as in modern Weihnachten) and "heilig/holy".
I would identify "weih" with "sacer" and "heilig/holy" with "sanctus" for many reasons. For example, "sacrum" as a noun can mean "holy object" or "shrine".
The Old Norse Vé and the Old English wēoh and OHG wīh (which come from the same sourse as "weih") have a very similar meaning.
For more: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9_(shrine)
"Heiliges römisches Reich" might today be the common translation for "Sacrum imperium romanum", but I don't think it was originally called like that.
The Latin word likely came first.
It might have been called differently in the Old High German period.
Apperently "there was a real competition for the right word [for "holy"] between the Anglo-Saxon missionaries in northern Germany and the Celtic preachers coming from Ireland and Scotland who worked in southern Germany."
According to this article: www.welt.de/kultur/article135659168/Sprechen-Sie-Christlich.html
@@Jon-mh9lk bruh the "weih" in "weihnachten" means "blessed"
we don't call frankincense "weihrauch" because it's holy, it's literally called "blessing-smoke" because that is it's purpose
I honestly like the HRE. I think it's neat and was a greatly influencial. I also just hate Voltaire.
Very accurate.
Agree as well, he had some cool ideas but can come off as pretty smug and rude.
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 People that are better than others tend to come off as that. Only unskilled losers are truly humble; and they're only so because they're too weak & stupid to be anything but. The average joe reading this comment, for example.
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 he didn't have anything good to say. Voltaire was just the Redditor of his time.
@@trueblueclue actually laughed out loud at this, you're totally right.
30% Holy
30% Roman
40% Empire
100% *GERMAN*
More like
40% Holy (The Empire is Holy in the sense that it was mostly Christian and had a lot of Symbolic Power in the Christian World)
10% Roman (Roman culture was preserved but the application is mostly symbolic and its Romaness is legally dubious)
50% Empire (It is an Empire, its a collection of different states with a diverse population and at times was actually a powerhouse worthy of t name, the Habsburgs at one point has control of the HRE and Spain making it very powerful in the process.)
The German part is more like 80% the rest are Italians, Czechs, Hungarians and Belgians.
As a German.. I totally agree.. I love my history .. Most of it... Well, not really... Nothing.. Because then I'm a Nazi 😂
Just kidding.. I'm very proud and I don't think it's good to demonize our history and only talk about it from the Allied point of view. Just because of the 12 dark years.. There was a big difference between Nazis, Germans and Wehrmacht soldiers.. Also, not everything is black and white.. Sure, there was a lot of black.. But Hitler didn't just say stupid things.. Sure he was crazy.. But everything about the Versailles Treaty and that the most important inventions come from the "Aryan" race is more or less correct..
I think we should be prouder and clearly separate the dark 12 years from everything else because we have such an old history and the Nazis just took good old Germanic or German things and interpreted them very dark.. The Nazis invented almost nothing.. As I said, only used things in a dark way like Germany Germany over all.. Was not meant that we stand over all in the original meaning..
@@frontgamet.v1892
Bruder. Niemand hat hier vom zweiten Weltkrieg geredet. Und du schreibst einfach ein Buch drüber . Why ?
“Friggin Germanic barbarians taking our names and titles!” 😂
@@vinz4066 Es scheint, dass viele unserer Volksgenossen Schwierigkeiten haben über ihren eigenen Schatten zu springen.
Not a problem in Norwegian: Here it’s called “The German-Roman State”, no one can argue argue about that!
thats a good naming! ;)
This underlines the platitude or shrumpness ( due to cold temperatures) of norwegian brains.
@@ezzovonachalm9815 what
@@ezzovonachalm9815to call something plainly is to be small-brained?
@@Potacintvervsit’s correct but not what they called themselves not what anyone else calls them
Voltaire's quote tells us more about him and contemporary thought that surrounded him than it does the HRE subject matter itself - as is the case with all historical sources 😉
As is the case with modern academic sources.
I already knew the HRE was all these things because it's in the name.
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist Modern historians would have an easier time if they just paid attention to the name of what they're studying smh
Based
The name doesn't always tell the truth. Take the "peoples republic" of north korea and the "peoples repulic of china", or the former "german democratic republic"...
None of them qualify as republic, the two claiming to be of their peoples are not really considering their peoples and there was little democratic about the GDR apart from it's end.
@@deutschermichel5807concur
huh@@holloww_dwella
ADDITION: The HRE idolised the Byzantines and copied their building projects and would attempt to marry Eastern Roman Princesses to bring Roman blood and Legitimacy into turn their German Empires. It must be known, they saw themselves as Frankish decendants, not Romans, but creating something even greater to honour God, in the shape of the great Empire of old.
Funnily enough many of the Byzantines they married were not exactly "Roman" or even Greek themselves. Many of the princesses married to HRE emperors and nobles were Greek-Armenian, straight up Armenian, and other ethnicities. I think there was one Georgian, iirc. Plus on the HRE side, there were also the descendents of the Alans and Huns, the former being ethnically Iranians, and the later being "asiatic." The world of the royalty was pretty diverse from an ethnic perspective, moreso than common folk.
Can I get a source on that? Sorry I just don’t trust anyone on the internet anymore.
@@Kingedwardiii2003 me?
@@floridaman318 Yeah, because it was more about culture and not about genetics.....
ERE was Roman, HRE was not...
@@floridaman318 Even though the ERE was ethically Greek, they were bearers of the legacy of the Roman Empire which hadn’t yet fallen to “barbarians”. There is such a difference as ethnically and culturally. Culturally, I am American. Ethnically, I am Rhine German, English, Scottish, Swiss German, Irish, and Italian, with a very small drop of Native American blood (so small it might not register at all on a dna test). The early modern rivals to the Ottomans weren’t ethnically Persian, but did become culturally. Up until around the start of the world wars, the British monarchy was ethically German, though I assume they saw themselves as British. People of the HRE were not ethnically Roman. They weren’t culturally Roman either. They looked to the legacy of the empire and said “I want to be him”
I think the HRE and its history is really cool if you look at is as a separate entity to the Roman Empire.
Very true. If one looks at it as a separate entirely separate of the Roman empire it's history and structure is really Cool. And I bet it would make a fantastic idea for a novel
@@Id_k_ absolutely agree
@@Id_k_ Funnily enough, that is the basis of what I'm writing right now.
Peace be with you in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ. Viva La Catholica. The Holy Roman Empire is just like the modern European Union.
That's because it is a separate entity of the Roman Empire. Heck, pretty sure they didn't call themselves the 'Holy Roman Empire' until several hundred years after the empire 'formed'.
It's a Germanic empire. That took the name 'Roman Empire' because the pope at the time of the empire's foundation didn't like that the current Roman Empire was ruled by a woman(it's petty as hell but pretty typical early Christian history).
The reason why the empire was such a mess(map wise at least) was because Germanic leaders have this weird succession condition that instead of the eldest son inheriting everything, they split the lands among themselves. It also didn't help that the church owned their own lands. It's a mess.
I don't know why anyone would take Voltaire seriously, not only was he cringe, he was also, and may God forgive me for uttering this most foul word, a French.
Ja
Was voltaire that bad? I dont know much about philosophy in general
@@sapateirovalentin348 He wasn't, it's just that Voltaire criticized the church (rigthly so) because he found all the stories about God nonsensical and because the members of the church were corrupt as hell and acted more like kings/nobles/generals than priests. That's why freaks here hate Voltaire, that it's, just because he wasn't an insane catholic that wanted to assassinate all protestants or jewish people is the reason why he is so hated among these circles. Time gave Voltaire the reason, we get all kind of pedophilic scandals about the church nowadays and their connection with the italian mafia and politicians of a lot of countries, also the presence of weird sects inside it like Opus Dei, a group made up of wealthy catholic business men that influence politics in places like South America, Spain and Poland. So Voltaire didn't believe in christianity because he saw it as a tool used to by the upper classes to justity their despotic rules and corruption.
@@kitcloudkicker14No, we hate Voltaire since he was a smug idiot who professed blatant distortions of scripture and Church theology among other loony ideas.
@@sapateirovalentin348 Voltraire is like the first redditor in history, whatever you think about r/atheism is what most people back then thought about voltaire. And that is mostly cringe.
I'm torn. On the one hand, the HRE was kind of silly. On the other, I hate Voltaire.
My thoughts exactly
trve
I'm glad you fit in the Crusader Kings joke. Paradox gaming reignited my interest in history
cringe
@@gimmertyfrog755 fringe
@@gimmertyfrog755 🐸
I know right! I've racked up 100 hours in the game since I started 2 months ago!
@@gimmertyfrog755Hearts of Iron is cringe nothing wrong with Crusader Kings
You should do a video on either the Russian third Rome thing and or did the Romans consider themselves still technically a Republic under the Senate during the late Roman/Byzantine era, especially after Leo the Wise reformed it?
The charade of Roman Republic continued during the principate but it's safe to say that all notions of the Empire being a Republic were dropped by the time of the dominate. A simple observation to confirm this lies with the color Tyrian purple. Purple was popular among the Roman Emperors for two reasons- one, it was very expensive to source; two, it was associated with royalty since the time of Phoenicians in the bronze age. During the Republic and Early empire, purple was only used during special events such as a Triumph to show the victor general/consul/princeps as someone close to a King- but not quite one- for a single day because during this period the Romans still despised the idea of Kingship. By the Dominate, however, Emperors flaunted the purple which shows that, over the centuries, the Romans had pretty much been successfully eased into the idea of a single man ruling Romania (Romanland) and he was special, almost divine.
Russia as the Roman successor state is such a good meme we need more of it
@@greyfells2829 as good as a meme as germans and then anglos and now americans thinking it lol
@@tlaloqq America isn't the heir to Rome, it is the reancarnation of Rome. Germany and England are heirs to Rome in their own way (England much more since it took over 25% of the entire planet)
To be fair, Third Rome concept was more of a religious concept, since with a fall of Constantinople Moscow became the main center of Orthodox faith, so it's fair, that the Principality would declare itself as a Rome successor, as, from their point of view, being the center of Orthodox faith was vital in order of being the actual successor
I would like to add to your final point by commenting on the kingdom of France during the time of Henry ii of England
Massive parts of France were brought under his rule and command only and just through marriages, would this make you not call royaume de France not a kingdom? No!
This is quite natural and normal in a feudal system
Henry was a vassal so no.
@@johnnotrealname8168Frederick the Great and the Duke of Bavaria were also vassals of the Empire but nonetheless fought wars against each other
@@deutschermichel5807 So?
@@BillionsWillDie That is not what the original comment is about.
@@BillionsWillDie I think Henry II inaugurated the Angevin Empire.
Voltairs quote is correct if you only look at the last years of the HRE but it completely ignores the other 900years of its existence.
“I must give you a piece of intelligence that you perhaps already know - namely, that the ungodly arch-villain Voltaire has died miserably like a dog - just like a brute. That is his reward!”
-Mozart
Honestly, the best way to make fun of the Holy Roman Empire is to point out that the entire justification for its existence is based on a proven forgery (The Donation of Constantine). I think that's a way funnier and more damning observation than the Voltaire quote.
whats the donation of constantine?
@@mihailupu5107 Obviously there is a Wikipedia article, but in brief:
The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope... it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy
@@mihailupu5107
The Donation of Constantine supposedly dates to the 4th Century. It states that Constantine the Great, before leaving Rome, became extremely ill. However after the Pope cured Constantine of his illness, Constantine granted jurisdiction of the whole Western Empire to the Pope.
This donation is what the Pope used to justify crowning Charlemagne. Constantine had given the West to the Pope, and thus the Pope had the right to transfer control of the west from Irene to Charlemagne.
Only one problem. The Donation is a forgery. It was not written in the 4th Century despite trying to present itself as such. It was forged somewhere around the 8th Century. The document was not proven to be a hoax until the late 15th Century, although there had been suspicions prior.
The Popes at the time knew they had no case. So they forged a fake document to justify crowning Charlemagne Emperor. I just find that really funny. The Holy Roman Empire's entire reason for existing is based on a fake document, that by the 16th Century they *knew* was fraudulent.
@@mihailupu5107 It's a document forged somewhere during the late 8th century AD that allegedly states that when Constantine the Great was moving the capital to Constantinople back in 330 AD, he gave the whole authority over the Western Empire to the Pope. That claim was used by the Catholic church to declare that the sole privilege to declare and dismiss Roman emperors was in Pope's hands.
@@justinian-the-great It wasn't forged, I was there.
I'm so sick of hearing that damn quote in every HRE related video.
No wonder Voltaire died like a lonely dog
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist Ah yes, cutting people's stick off and blinding people. Truly civilized
@Daydy377.
Voltaire died not as a dog ( dogs are noble animals) but like a parasitic venenous insect !
Looks like Mozart had the last laugh
The hre wasn't holy, wasn't Roman nor was it an empire 😏
#Daydy377
Voltaire died not as a lonely dog ( a noble animal) but as a hyena he was
Italy really slipped from imperial control after the death of Henry VII, whom Dante Alighieri held in high regard as a reformer who came to italy before she knew she needed one. He was the last emperor to really pursue an italian policy, which was cut short by his sudden death in 1313
"Italy" "she". I find interesting how people from romance language speaking countries seems to try to put gender in everything. I also do that.
@@silentsurvivor2082 it is not that we seek to put genders, it's the grammar of our languages that (unlike English or Greek) doesn't have a gender neutral. (In Spanish the "neutral" is "El" which means Him
@@silentsurvivor2082 It is actually pretty traditional: countries, like ships, were called 'she' in English and referred to in the feminine until the 20th century.
@@forthrightgambitia1032yes there are some really interesting conventions regarding the grammatical sex of objects. In the German language, ships are always feminine, cars masculine and restaurants/hotels neuter.
@@D19DMO128D didn't say that wasn't the case, just that the romance languages don't have a neutral pronoun lol
I think a lot of the perceived ridiculousness of medieval claims to Romanness has to do with a modern bias in favor of "classical Rome", whereas the medievals understandably viewed Rome in terms of its later, Christian phase. If we take a look at the late Roman empire, its relationship towards religion, even at things such as architecture* etc., we see a lot more similarities and even continuity between Rome and the post-Roman order than if we were to compare, let's say, the HRE or 14th Century Byzantium to the Rome of Caesar. In this light, these claims of empire translation lose a considerable chunk of their preposterousness. (One simply has to accept that elegant columns, paganism and all the "glory" would have been lost anyway at that point.)
(Not to forget, many important elements of the medieval order (the papacy, the Catholic church and its organisational structure) were crafted when the empire was still around.)
*Just compare late Roman or early post-Roman constructions such as San Vitale with Charlemagnes palace in Aachen, or how the "Byzantine style" 5th century architecture spread across Southern Eastern Europe for centuries to come.
Part of the problem is also that the medieval empire never had the high level of centralization, urban culture, and administrative sophistication that the ancient Roman Empire had. Medieval states were far less effective, more fragmented entities without a real capital city, ruled by feudal "primus inter pares" kings with itinerant courts. This in itself makes the term "Empire" almost sound like a hollow claim and much more like a paper construct than the "true" Roman Empire had ever been.
Fascinating that some guy's quote 250 years ago that was meant to piss people off is still pissing people off today
Edgy ngl
He's living in our minds rent free
That's more so due to the fact that numbskulls think they're intelligent for repeating his stupid quotes everywhere.
Well, he was WRONG
And people still believe him
So it's just to expose him
@@goyonman9655 maybe use his qoute in that context. Maybe you will understand what it is trying to say.
Shallowness of understanding is being kind. Perhaps it's better to state that it's not a good idea to let your enemies sum up your history. And a student of history should always keep this in mind. People have agendas, their agendas impose a lens upon your view of a subject.
(only) arguing based on Voltaire is like only reading Pravda in order to inform yourself about Capitalism
@@deutschermichel5807 hah.
The germans also have a lot of agendas regarding their own history. Thats what is the most ironic part of your comment.
@@deutschermichel5807Americans tell me Germans are good subs and your women love American soldiers. Is this true?
It was all of those things especially during the middle ages. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa literally launched a military invasion of northern Italy because the local nobles and burghers were ignoring imperial edicts. Imperial authority in those days was very real and was enforced throughout the Empire.
Voltaire also said the the British have 172 religions but only one sauce. 😂
HRE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Byz*ntines
I hate playing in the HRE because I always get elected emperor which kills my game goals
Got elected to Emperor as France accidently. Used to make my conquests to the Rhine easier
Just change your religion to other christian denominations. Or outright Islam. Oh god, Islamic Cologne would be soooo in line with current time events!
@@alifkazeryu8228 I got a submod called decline elections where I can use a decision to remove me from elections.
@@alifkazeryu8228 this meme is dead, go to Germany yourself and see that it's still distinctly German. Berlin, like all big cities, is more international. But places like Bavaria are almost too German lol
@@greyfells2829 yeah... I don't remember Cologne is anywhere near Bavaria
Actually very good video, i hope it wasn't an Aprils fools video, cause now i am convinced to your statements
I think the HRE was pretty cool
It was cool, just not Roman.
Very cool
@@Michael_the_Drunkard no, it was Holy Roman 😉
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Depends of your definition of Roman
@@bioemiliano the greeks were roman since they had been citizens of the empire since the 2nd century
It was more roman then the Byzantine empire at least they were in control of the city of Rome itself
I may not really give a shit on whether people see the HRE as Roman or not, but I will definitely call anyone who uses Voltaires quote a pretentious dimwit now.
Sometimes Voltaire quotes are true and accurate and cutting. Its pretentious and dinwitted to automatically dismiss anyone quoting Voltaire. He really does have a lot of awesome quotes. Theres a reaosn people still quote him to this day.
@@waltonsmith7210
*it's called a joke, friend*
There’s a fine line between being ironic and being serious, and people on the internet can’t always tell, friend
Voltaire a hater fr fr 💯💯on G
I may be an Orthodox Byzaboo (though I love Western Rite Orthodoxy if you know what that is), but this video was like crack candy to me. I normally love succinct videos, but I wouldn't have minded if this dragged on for an hour even; in fact I just wanted more. And it breaks my heart that Napoleon is responsible for the death blow to the HRE. Alas, sic transit gloria mundi.
I mean imagine visiting the Holy Roman Empire in 2023. Better that than no Roman Empire. Thanks, Ottomans.
@@ssteelemember that while the Italian city-states which had long escaped the influence of the Holy Roman Empire, fought Constantinople and its Emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor always tried to defend the Orthodox Christians aganist the Turks. Even when the Byzantine Empire had been long dead and Ottoman rule in the Balkans strengthend, the Habsburgs kept on fighting the Turks until approximately the year 1900, lastly annexing Bosnia-Herzegowina from the Ottoman Empire, until they finally joined one side in the Great War
The Kings of France, however, often betrayed the Roman-German Emperors and allied with the Turks to fight the Empire
Napoleon was unfathomably based for finally getting rid of the german larpers and becoming the ultimate mega larper
@@deutschermichel5807 another reason to hate the French
@@deutschermichel5807 Sounds to me like a romanticized version of events. The HRE rulers didn't give a shit about orthodox Christians, they only acted when the Turks encroached on their own borders (including Hungary). They never provided guarantees or protection of any sort for the Christian populations of the Ottomans. Even the Russians can claim they did more than that. If anything, by providing zero assistance during the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and by implicitly supporting the Fourth Crusade (which also included crusaders from HRE who faced absolutely no repercussions), the HRE rulers did the opposite of defending anyone Orthodox. A policy that continued even after the death of HRE with suppression of the Balkan populations of Austria-Hungary, which together with its arrogance, led to its downfall.
This is a breath of fresh air in the sea of subversive history being taught everywhere nowadays.
It's really sad that someone makes conclusions about a literal Empire from a cheap cliché by a cheap someone like Voltaire. But it's the absolute state of "knowledge" nowadays it seems...
"In elementray school I didn't like literature because it had simple motals and was useless. In highschool I started loving politics because they have simple morals and are useless"
- the ultimate guide to anything related to my youtube usage
I never knew much about the HRE but I always knew that smug line was an oversimplification or even outright misinterpretation. And the more I learn the more the smugness irked me.
How I understood it was;
That it was Holy: a Pope said it was holy, and at this time he's the only arbiter of holiness, and it's the nation itself that's holy no one individual so no takesees backsees.
It was Roman; they link back to Charlemagne who was all about "romanness."
It was an Empire; or empire-like, large, multiple ethinc groups, "colinized" eastward.
So, Voltaire is the guy that started it. Smh.
HRE Existed for a long time, by voltaires time it was probably an apt description of the state at that time. I agree it’s a bit of a smug oversimplification, and it shouldn’t be the only thing someone should know about it
Holy Roman Emperor Otto III is actually quite fondly remebered in Poland. He visited Poland in the year 1000 as a pilgrimage to St. Adalbert's relics, and meeting duke Boleslav I the Brave promised restoration of the Roman Empire as a federation of Germany, France, Italy & Western Slavdom with Bolesław as king of the latter (Poland, Lusatia, Czechia, Slovakia, Red Ruthenia). Sadly Otto III died not long after, but Boleslav later waged wars with the new emperor for some of this lands.
Would love to see a video on Theodoric the Great and the Ostrogothic kingdom with this idea. I’ve held the idea for awhile that he was a de facto Roman Emperor as well.
Definitely not Roman at all
It was Roman enough.
Yea, they didn't even hold Rome as their territory, calling itself Roman is bs.
If by “enough” you mean “not one bit” then yeah
I think their claim to Roman Empire is based on the funny hat man forging some letter.
However funny hat man had nothing to do with the Roman Empire either
I think I understand it now... it's all about the name!
• The HRE was *Holy* . But in the sense of considering itself sacred enough in the Christian World as to grant their leaders the religious authority needed to stand up against the Papacy and represent Christianity. Making itself seem more like a *Theocracy*
• The HRE was *Roman* . But in the sense of it being a bunch of Germans that sometimes protected Rome and Italy and liked to roleplay as the old empire every now and then. They are like *Germanic Romans* , so I'll give it a pass.
• And the HRE was an *Empire* . But not in the sense of being a politically unified structure under the rule of an absolute ruler, (that's a modern concept) but more as a amalgamation of diferent states, cultures and ethnic groups that shared a common goal and worked together... mostly. Just like a *Confederacy* !
Having said that I propose to settle this argument by *fucking them over* like we did with those Greeks and come up with an equally laughable name as to avoid further confusion. So I propose we call them:
*THE THEOCRATIC GERMANO-ROMAN CONFEDERACY*
Any objections?
While your assessment of the Roman-German element is correct, I think your terms "theocracy" and "confederacy" are wrong:
Firstly,
the relations between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papal States have evolved and changed a lot in the millenium of itʼs existance. Whereas in the beginning, the Popes were inferior to the Frankish Kings and in need of their support, leading to the coronation of Charlemagne as an ultimate “Thank-You”, the Church became increasingly important in politics later on, with the spread of spiritual rulers in the HRE: In order to fight back the might of the tribal *confederacies* in Germany, the King granted many cities and territories to bishops and monastaries, so that nobles couldn't marriage and inherit them. This strategy helped decreasing the force of the tribal rulers, in favour of the king. It, however, backfired whenever the Emperor and the Church were not on good terms. In the Holy Roman Empire, the King was elected by the vassals, both Spiritual and Temporal. So when the Pope excommunicated the Emperor, all the princely bishops and abbots became a threat to the Empire. In order to solve this problem, the Kings simply invested their own bishops, which in turn angered the Popes and lead to the Investiture Conflict, which was finally ended with the “Henricium sive Calixtinum”. From then on, the HRE and the Papal States had more often good than bad relations. The Emperor was seen as the temporal head of all christian realms, whereas the Pope was the spiritual head of all Church. With the Reformation, many German princes introduced the Lutheran faith in order to strengthen their control over the religion. Similarly, in England, the King became the head of the Church.
- but would you call the Queen or King Charles III. a theocratic ruler? No. Therefore the HRE waa no theocracy, but rather a feudal monarchy.
Thus, secondly,
the Holy Roman Empire was a feudal monarchy, rather than a confederacy: A confederacy, or “Bundesstaat” in German, is when multiple people or states join together into a bigger state whilst all keeping some autonomy. The best example might be the United States of America, composing of 50 states, all having their own state legislatures and governeurs. But, together, they have the Congress and the President. These federal institutions are not superior because of some hierarchy, but because they are the “first among equals”. Same thing in Germany, where 16, in the past 25 and before that 39 states are united into a (Con-)Federation. The Federal Parliament (Bundestag) is not “higher” than some state legislatures because of some divine hierarchy or the Grace of God, but because it is a common institution of the Federation.
This has nothing to do with the HRE, which was a monarchy. Through the Grace of God, the Emperor *ruled* his subjects, the princes of the lesser territories. They understood themselves to be inferior to His Majesty not because they decided so in some contract, but because of Divine Right. An interesting example is the East Frankish Kingdom in the early 10th century: At this point, the ruling royal dynasty have been the Carolingians for a hundred years. But suddenly, the Royal Family died out with last king, a child, dying himself childless. The kingdom was divided into four big duchies. Practically, the four dukes could have been independent now and rule on their own now. But they didn't. Instead they voted and elected one of their own, Konrad, the Duke of Franconia to be king. This happened not only in the face of the threat by the Hungarians, which every one of the four dukes weren't poweful enough on their own to defend against, but because they thought and firmly believed that there has to be a king, a monarch above them. This hierarchy remained during the entire millenium in the HRE. Always, the king stood above the other lords and princes and dukes, who all swore personal loyalty to the monarch
What a bad take that guy who first replied already destroyed ur arguments
@@deutschermichel5807 For real now, I agree with you and I *don't* think the name of the HRE should actually change. I was just joking on how the name implies things that are not obvious at first sight and also poking fun on how in many times in history we changed the name of historical nations to avoid "confusion". But I do appreciate your text a lot, medieval history is something I'm getting more in depth now and new knowledge is always welcomed.
@@deutschermichel5807 also, you seem to know a whole lot about the HRE, could you recommend me any books?
@@kreken5260 Don't take it seriously, read my other comment
Voltaire was just the "Enlightenment" Era equivalent of a Redditor. He shouldn't matter as much as he did.
but he does, elightenment thought built modern society and you playing absolute monarchies in grand strategy games will never make them come back
@@lechad8686 absolute monarchies were an enlightenment idea.
@@michaelpsellos770 yeah well enlightened despotism. the idea of an absolute monarchy existed before the enlightenment.
@Steel it was and it was condemned. Marsellius of Padua was excommunicated for suggesting it, as we're the Holy Roman Emperor's who tried it.
Absolute Monarchies are very much a product of the enlightenment. People keep creating them in their video games because
1) that's what our idea of a monarchy is
2) people like to simulate having that level of control and
3) ai tends to be dumb
@@lechad8686 Enlightenment and its consequences have been a disaster for humanity
Voltaire is a bum.
People often have such a biased view of the word 'empire' that it gets on my nerves. The simplest way to put it is that the HRE was an empire because that was what the title was called. But even in other ways it was similar to other empires. At the end of the day, medieval/early modern European politics was confusing as hell, but the nature of the HRE as an empire was one of the simplist concepts, as a realm that was above the rank as a kingdom. That's it.
This is similar to how people get mad at star wars for having an elected queen. When that was a very common form of government in the past lol
As a German history student I can say that all of my professors in medieval history would literally laugh at the Voltaire quote if presented to them when discussing the medieval HRE. It's mostly amateur historians from America or other European countries who get the HRE completely wrong. Just talking for 5 minutes to a professional German historian, who in his entire life did nothing but analysing and investigating medieval Germany, will prove them wrong.
ah yes, let a German talk about his heritage, he certain will not be biased at all about it. Europeans have NEVER been biased about their ancestors, unlike those silly Americans.
@@officaldoylefoodreviews7515 What is the difference between a German history professor and a Chinese one, for example? Even though he's German, he still studied
Its not roman tho, you cant pray facts into existance
Of course the descendants of the filthy Germanics who ruined Rome would try to justify their LARPing by this chicanery.
@@filbagano7946We Germans do have nothing to do with the sacking of Rome. The Goths sacked Rome. The Goths were only one Germanic tribe. The Goths never were a part of Germany. So we canʼt be blamed for this
A Middle german prince wrote the script for this video
And I am here for it.
If he lived today, Voltaire would have 100 subscribers and make emo teen philosophy videos on vimeo.
The Hre was an empire because all German states were legally bound to support the Habsburgs in the case of a reichskrieg. This worked during the Nine Years’ War, War of Spanish Succession, War of Polish Succession, War of First Coalition, and War of Second Coalition. During the Seven Years’ War, an internal reichskrieg was declared against Prussia, so most German states turned against Prussia.
even after the peace of Wesphalia?
@@tompatterson1548 Yes. The last imperial war was waged against Revolutionary France actually.
There was a legal distinction between an imperial war (against foreign states) and an imperial execution (against inner states) but generally speaking you're correct.
Not to mention the Emperor's authority to institute a Reichsbann, no matter the station of its target.
Legally bound yeah, but a lot of the times not only they refused the call, but also fought against the empire, notably some german states allying with france during the War of spanish succession.. By the way, the states themselves could simply refuse to aid, declaring neutrality, as it happened many times in those wars you cited.
6:23 As someone who's quite familiar with and has always been interested in the theological aspects behind the statue in the book of Daniel, there's something I'm surprised has been omitted here.
You're right that the statue had symbolic metallic components consisting of gold (Babylon), silver (Persia), bronze (Macedonia), and iron (Rome), but you've missed the last component - the feet of clay mixed with iron, which many interpret to be another power that succeeds Rome.
Such interpretations of who this mystery kingdom succeeding Rome is have ranged from (hilariously) the EU to (maybe more understandably) the Anglo-American powers of today. So I'm curious how the feet of clay mixed with iron representing another power were interpreted in the role of the Holy Roman Empire.
For those interested, the feet of iron mixed with the clay is typically seen as an entity that still exists today but is split into two (much in the same way that the iron legs of the statue are seen as representative of east and west Rome).
This is because at the end of the dream of the statue in Daniel, the entire statue is destroyed when a large stone strikes it at its feet. The stone is interpreted as the everlasting kingdom of God which, unlike the mortal empires of metal, is infinite and will never fall.
Yeah, good point. "Fifth Monarchism" was (is) certainly a thing. I've omitted it because as with most thing in history, if you dig a little deeper there is another interesting thing, which will be great to discuss. And I didn't have enough time to make an hour-long video.
@@RomabooRamblings Aye, understandable. It can get rather complex focusing on the exact theological interpretations and discrepancies.
Btw, great video! I think I still have something of an issue with the 'Roman' aspect to the HRE, but the 'Holy' and 'Empire' parts are perfectly understandable.
The forgery of the 'Donation of Constantine' is rather damning imo to the states quote on quote 'legitimacy', and it's formation is akin to France seizing control of Washington while the USA is divided and proclaiming itself to be the new America.
@@RomabooRamblings Peace be with you in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ. Viva La Catholica. The Holy Roman Empire is just like the modern European Union.
Perhaps the iron mixed with clay represents 2 empires that co-existed since why would they be mixed? If I say what nation it is, it would be a nation that challenged Rome, and that is Carthage. But I don't know much about the book of Daniel to begin with but I just wanted to suggest an idea, or maybe it represents the split of the Roman Empire?
But as I said I am not an expert on these stuff.
@@RomabooRamblingswas this video meant to be a joke? Or for real because you released it on April fools day aka April1st.
Greatest thing i like about the HRE was that it was a loose monarchical confederacy where each internal state could basically mind its own business alone. Nowadays this is anathema for the mega "democractic", "republican" states of the world.
voltaire is a clown
The Holy Roman Empire is the greatest (I’m not joking because Charlemagne and Otto I are Gigachads)
I’ve got an Italian name spelled german style and my family is catholic
They came to the United States after the breakup of the “empire”
HRE definitely was holy, Roman and an empire
Voltaire was neither a historian, writer, or political thinker.
True
History is written by the victors is the only true thing he ever said
Sorry but I still dont get in what way the HRE is any way the successor of the old Roman Empire of antiquity besides the pope making a political move by crowning Charlemagne as Roman emperor, but I dont see how the Catholic Church has any authority over deciding who's emperor or not. The way I see it the Western Roman empire ended when the senate and other ancient political and legal institutions got disbanded or crumbled in the 5th tilll 7th centuries.
Well the pope held rome in the aftermath of it's collapse.
I love how in the movie Valkyrie, as Klaus Von Staffenburg was being executed by firing squad for trying to assassinate Hitler, his dying epitaph is: “Long live sacred Germany!”
He was definitely harkening back to this idea of the Sacred Roman Empire, which I really like the sound of and appreciate the perspective here!
Ja
Too bad him and his men were racists and war criminals themselves and they tried to assasinate Hitler merely for political reasons.
I was already calling them pretentious midwits, but thank you for providing solid arguments for why they are pretentious midwits.
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist They aren't as pretentious as their critics tho
I like this channel, and watched some videos. But I found the argument about how the HRE was Roman to be lacking or unconvincing. The population didn't identify themselves as Romans, as compared to the Byzantines.
"Wait, it's ALL Rome?"
"Always has been."
The more Roman pretenders we recognize, the more glorious the wet dream of a hypothetical reunited Roman Empire including all territories by all successors at any time will be!
Jokes aside, I read up on Otto III in particular, a really fascinating historical figure. If he lived longer and had successors continueing his legacy, medieval history would have looked VERY different.
His policy of supporting the christianity in the Bohemia as well as the young kingdoms of Poland and Hungary was aimed at creating a crhistian family of nations under the banner of Rome.
With his attempts at curbing the power of the Papacy (particularily exposing the Donation of Constantine as a forgery) and strong connection to the ERE would probably avoid the crusades, and instead a coalition of german, italian, polish, and hungarian troops would launch an expidition to aid the besieged ERE.
The HRE and it's Confoederatii would also pose a valuable trading partner and source for mercenaries for the ERE.
If this were to last, the mongol invasion would probably face fiercer resistance from a Central European bloc as well.
And, a man can dream, perhaps, by some fortunate whim of fate, the crowns of the HRE and ERE would eventually end up on the same head.
one objection that I have is that the HRE coulnd't be a roman empire, since the roman empire was still alive in the east.
The only way it would make sense to me that the HRE is a roman empire is if they bowed to the eastern romans.
Otherwise, they're just mimicing
In theory both were part of the Roman empire. They didn't outright denounce each other
I always had settled this as:
Holy:
Meaning Consecrated, which is dedicated through ritusls exclusively to a specific religious use, or to one specific God or religion. .
The HRE whas specifically dedicated to this matter. Didn't knew the worldview of thst time showed in this video, which adds further more weight to thr claim.
Roman, most of its political entanglement happened in Rome. As well as the entirety of its religious authority. Hence Roman. Also, the ruling authority of the city of Rome crowned the emperor as Emperor of the Romans. Let alone the understanding of the locals of such idea.
Empire, (same argument as in the video)
So. Yea, holy roman empire.
I love the fact you know that part of your audience are paradox players.
Voltaire is shallow in every thing he said and thought so it’s not surprising
The sometimes Holy, Never Roman, Sometimes Empire
Maybe Germanic
Always g*rman
@@Vajrapani108 gispie
@@Vajrapani108 Lol streetshitter coping about a superior people
@@secretname4190 “me, albanian boy-“
"enlightenment" philosophers were really just the redditors and Twitter users of their time
When the HRE was formally dissolved in 1806, an incredible amount of people that inhabited its territories at the time were absolutely terrified by the news. As weak as it may have become by that time, it was nonetheless a political entity that brought stability, a sort of sense of belonging, and military protection, as unsure as it may have been. After the dissolution, so many people argued that the Austrian Emperor had no legal right to dissolve the millennial institution, and so many others felt lost or desperate at the loss of such an extremely influential entity.
It's better for your life security that this is april fool
Too late, I’m coming for him now
@@Matthaeus0 we're counting on you Aurelian.
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist "delendi sunt"
Maybe this is an April Fools (although it's past 12:00 where I live so it doesn't count, as we practice it), but on the assumption that this is a good faith argument I think you're a bit off the mark here.
Holy: So, in effect, this could be summed up as being holy "because I say so". Sure, the HRE's emperors participated in the crusades, and did engage with the reformation (although how "good" their faith was is debatable). But many of Europe's major states did the former, and England, in the latter case, has the better claim to be "Holy/Sacred" since it's king did declare himself the official head of the Church & maintained that position much more strongly than any emperor. That said, if you take "Holy" as being consecrated by the Pope I think that's valid. You rejected this version, but it seems to me the strongest one in terms of legitimacy. The Pope is God's representitive, and the HRE (or rather, it's ruler) was given legitimacy as King of the Romans by the Pope, being a holy vassal by extension. This would mean that when relations were poor that "holiness" was much weaker, but for a Catholic empire then assent by the Pope is surely the only legitimate source of holiness.
Roman: A bit stronger than it's claim to holiness, but other than the enforcement of Roman Law in the late 15th century (more than 500 years after it's founding) it seems to lack many distinctly *Roman* political structures. Sure, some emperors were keen on using Roman titles, but Philip II was know as "Augustus" & he hardly has a claim on Romaness. There's the obvious lack of Latin & control over Italy that hurt a pretention at being Rome, but even if we take it as more a spiritual monikor, then it really is just play-acting. There was not fully developed national identity (though Maximilan I did make several allusions to a Germanic nation) there was national identiity. Bohemia, for example, may have been part of the HRE but it's people & rulers were Czechs. The common tounge was Czech, and they did not see themselves as "Roman". And whilst this may have also been true for parts of the real Roman empire, it was not true for the core parts of it. But Bohemia was as core to the HRE as Greece was the Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire gets a claim to Romaness in part because it's people thought that they were Roman. But the same cannot be said for the miriad constituant states of the HRE.
Empire: This is the only part that actually fits. I agree that Voltaire only added it to make the quip sound better. Even so, it was not a particuarly centralised one. Unlike various contemporary empires throughout it's lifetime, the ERE, the Angevin, the Ottoman, it was a looser collection of states whose rulers owed less direct fealty to their overlord. This does depend on who & when, of course, but although the HRE has a well-known & well documented political system it was still relatively weak beurocratically speaking. Some emperors centralised it, under others that centeralisation slipped. This doesn't discount it from being an empire, of course, but by Voltaires' comparison to contemperary states it was much less so.
In short, the HRE could be considered Holy, Roman & an Empire, but only if you are generous with the definition of the former two, which really boils down to your definition of the words, and the strength of the claim to all three varies wildly throughout its history. Lastly, any put-down of the HRE is a put-down of the Germans, which can only be a good thing in my view.
I mean, it *is* an April fools vid. It came out like early evening* yesterday (at least in Eastern Standard Time)
Very mature last statement there, mate.
@@caetsaragrippa5283 I'm sorry my joke at the end wasn't arbeit macht frei enough for you, mate.
@@gurigura4457 I'm sure you can do better.
HRE seems like a really chill place to live compared to it's neighbors
But during the 15th-17th century, if you happen to have the "wrong" religion, you're as good as a nonentity.
"Cuius regio, eius religio"
Other than that, you're correct. Ferdinand I was a chill dude. And it's all thanks to him that there were no significant religious wars in the HRE until the rise of Calvinism and the Thirty Years' War.
@@Arbelot Cuius regio, eius religio applies to each state so its peaceful depending where you are
@@Arbelotwell that's not a big issue. Just don't be a heretic
I see many people fighting about what is ''roman'', ''byzantine'', byzantines being mainly Greeks etc. Guys if you had a time machine and went to ancient world lets say in 700 B.C or 100 B.C and said ''hi i am roman'' people would thought that you are literally from the city of rome in central Italy, but if then with the same machine went to 250 A.D or 700 A.D if you said that you are roman, people wouldnt think that you are from the city of Rome (if even you were) but you were a citiznen of the roman empire regardless if your nationality was south italian, Greek, Armenian etc. After almost 1000 years, being ''roman'' had become a supranational cultural identity, a title, something similar today of being European or American, with the difference of having even greater cultural and religious meaning, for example you were the reprensetitive of Gods kingom on earth, you were different of other barbarians pagans and infidels etc.
Just Here to say: No it wasnt, Just German Larpers.
Also Rome died 1453
No, Rome died in 1917.
>German LARPers
>LARPs as an orthofag Roman on the internet
Pot calling the kettle black
Except they weren't even larping
No, the true Roman Empire was the ERE... The HRE, was anything but Roman..... End of story..
You mean the true Roman Empire was the Roman Empire. No such thing as an ERE
@@ssteel Used the term "ERE" just to make a distinction.. I agree with you..
@@NickStrife True. I didn't consider the fact it would've been confusing.
Holy is completely subjective and only if you're catholic, but then again considering the Investiture controversy and many other conflicts even that is dodgy.
Roman it absolutely was not from a Roman perspective. They were neither Roman citizens, nor did they embody the Roman system Or law (no matter how much cosmetic flair they tried to give it) not to mention that the Popes were NEVER in charge of Roman succesion, in absolutely no piece of Roman law or precedent was the Pope in charge of choosing an Emperor when one already existed!(none of these points were addressed, not that they can be addressed)
Also it should be noted that it was the Job of the Roman State to decide and hand citizenship, that state already existed in the East.
An empire it was, a very soon hella decentralized one but it was.
All in all we can conclude, debatably Holy, Not Roman and decentralized Empire. Voltaire is wrong but so are you.
Personally I find it too germanic to be Roman, too decentralized to be an empire and ever since the pope stop crowing their emperors I find them too much like france or portugal to be called holy unless most of europe was already holy in which case the title is redundant.
An argument can be made that the HRE was indeed Holy, and an Empire. I disagree, but I will be generous and say a case could be made. But the HRE was absolutely, under no condition, Roman. They simply were not. The only successor to the Roman Empire were the Byzantines. Period.
They Byzantines didnʼt even speak Latin. The Germans did
@@deutschermichel5807 most people in the Late Roman Republic and throughout the majority of Imperial Rome did not speak Latin. With the exception of Senatorial speeches and written laws, Latin wasn't widely used outside of Latium itself. Greek was the majority speaking languages of southern Italy and the eastern holdings
@@lordcommanderdire5113 so why arenʼt Germans Roman, when according to you nobody was?
@@deutschermichel5807 I didn't say nobody was Roman. Everyone who was part of the Roman Empire was, for a time, Roman. But since the Roman Empire didn't collapse it just got a new name, nobody that lived outside of the Eastern Roman Empire could possibly be Roman. Rome finished as a cultural and political entity in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople
@@lordcommanderdire5113 So you say Turks are stronger than Romans?
I highly recommend to read Peter Wilson's book about HRE. It explains that decentralized structure of empire was the source of its durability and agility as well as Liberty (at least by standards of that time).
Yes the Holy Roman Empire's Dukes and Princes claimed the „Deutsche Libertät” (German Liberty) for themselves in order to protect their regional interests aganist the globalist interests of the Emperor
noted, thank you for the recommendation!
I know the book, I have it, it's very interesting and it explains in detail all the thousand years of the HRE, the only bad thing is that it's really huge to read.
but it fits 1000 pages for 1000 years of history.
Great book!
Voltaire was indeed clever but he also had a poor knowledge of history - he wrote a poem comparing Louis XV to Emperor Trajen - he disgraced himself in the eyes of the King by such ignorance - cause Trajen was a well known Christian killer - duhh Voltaire
I hate how much Voltaire is considered such a massive philosopher from my country. Like some of his works are cool but he brings more shame to France than anything else.
It is what it is, Germany Also has cringe Philosophers, but both also have based ones
As a German i agree.. Love French and German history..
Our countries both experienced great glory and shaped this world.. What has become of these countries and of tradition.. Truly sad my French friend.
I will defend Voltaire insofar as the context of his writing allows. By the time of Voltaire, the HRE was fragmented and weak. The Emperor had lost much of his divine and secular authority within the empire. So I've always seen the quote as reflecting the contemporary state of the HRE, not the historical state.
Tell that all the Voltaireboos constantly misquoting him and quoting him out of context in order to reassure their modern, nationalistic biases.
The Byzantine Empire was holy (Orthodox), was Roman and was an empire.
which is why you had two Empires (actually more but the others were less significant) with good and not so good arguments of being the successor. Its not a black and white thing which could fully be solved ;)
Checkmate Voltaire. Take that L.
Holy? Probably not, Roman? No, Empire? Yes.
People think Charlamagne was not Roman since he was a Frank forget that Aurelian, one of the greatest emperors of Rome, was Illyrian who are the ancestors of the Albanians today
Charlemagne was literally a descendant of the barbarians who took down the western part lol
@@Dragoncam13 He was a descendant of foederati who faught FOR the roman empire.
@@Dragoncam13 Tiberius III had Gothic ancestry, Leo III Arab, Leo IV Khazar, there were many "barbarian" eastern emperors especially if one counts maternal descent aswell
@@be2081 okay but how is this relevant to what I said?
@@moritzreinhard2504 if that's true they still weren't citizens,just convenient allies
Good Video, Really nothing in it I disagree with aside from the Argument of Roman. I am camp Rome fell in 1453 with the Siege of Constantinople and the HRE had Rome in its name, But Roman they were not. They may have Personified their *ideal* of Rome as the Sacrum Imperium, But that's not Rome, that's a Medieval persons conception of the Idea of Rome.
I have always said this
13 year old Reddit history meme kids who smell like piss have soiled the reputation of the HRE on the internet by reciting Voltaire’s quote a million times over.
@@monkeymoment6478 even my history teacher quoted him, despite the fact it’s obviously false.
I disagree with Voltaire about the "Empire" statement, it was indeed an empire, but not Roman in any sense. The holy title is a German affair, I don't support neither deny it.
Actually Roman? Right. That's why it was mostly... German. 😅 And never was completely subjugated by the real Roman Empire.😂 And didn't last as long as other provinces as Roman.
Roman enough.
Even the "Eastern Roman empire" could have more legitimacy to call himself "Holy Roman Empire" than the germans guys.
I like that this argument is addressed in the video regarding what 'Roman' meant in the mind of medievals and so many dumbasses on here still use it because it doesn't fit their conceptions of what Romaness is.
@@___E
Eh... kind of, sort of. But not very Roman, still.