I don't understand why the media makes such a big to do about Henry VIII, but you never hear anything about Charles V who lived and ruled at the same time and had one of the largest empires in history. This guy's life was far more interesting than Henry's in my opinion.
BlackWolf9988 Napoleon might be copying Charles V at his time tho, albeit he should speak French to both genders and Italian for his family's children, a lesson his nephew should learn
+kwadwo baidoo I mean, our royal family has. And, yes, it daoes explain. Search for it. Green from Bragança and yellow from Hapsburg. Pedro I of Brazil and IV of Portugal has maried Maria Leopoldina from Austria.
Germany alone wasn't united as germany. A unity between germany and spain was unthinkable. That's why it was a shitty empire. Noone liked Charles, he didn't even speak german and claimed rule over germany, in a time where Luther and Guttenberg printed the Bible in german and for the first time created a national self awareness in the german people.
+Russell Johnson Actually it was De Locutione who said: "When Emperor Charles V used to say, as I hear, that the language of the Germans was military; that of the Spaniards pertained to love; that of the Italians was oratorical; that of the French was noble" Your version is a much later change.
2 things I got from this video. 1) that pesky Martin Luther is still causing trouble, sneakin' 'round the globe 2) Brazilians are the Mongols of America
Charles II of Spain is one of my favourite historical monarchs. You can have as many as 64 great, great, great, great, great grandparents. Charles II had two.
Charles was actually a very successful monarch in Spain. He expanded Spain so it became the biggest empire in Europe, had huge quantities of bullion shipped in which helped him fund his foreign policy, Protestantism was literally destroyed in Spain and remained that way for Philip's reign, and his political authority was almost absolute. His only problems were that the Holy Roman Empire was a black hole for resources (for which Spain suffered) and his attention, being absent for more years than he was present as the king of Spain, and the problems of inflation (and the latter was not even recognised/known of at the time!)
His most important realm was not the HRE, the Archduchy of Austria, the Duchy of Burgundy, or the Italian realms of Milan, Naples, Sicily or Sardinia. It was SPAIN. He was born in Ghent but lived most of his adult life in Spain. He died there and he allowed his son Felipe to grow up in Spain not the HRE
Samsung Samsung hmm if Charles V had to deal a huge German,Dutch,Swiss,Belgian,Italian,Magyar,and Czech united revolution, would Spain crush East-Central Europe by arms only?
@@cesarperezargota Of course. The HRE was an unruleable mess, especially during his time. But the title of emperor had the most renown in the Christian world view.
Phillip II of Spain (Charles V' son) was a bigger emperor than his dad. The expression, "the empire on which the sun never sets," was coined during Philip's time to reflect the extent of his dominion.
@@thewienerwolf Philipp did not "lose" the war because he died long before the war was over, and while he was alive he wasn't really "losing" it either. As a matter of fact, the first time the Dutch won a battle against the Spanish was at Niewport in 1600, two years after Philipp's death. And those "swamp" people happened to be the richest people in Europe, and some of the most innovative, so don't discredit their worth.
Since you guys have now talked about the Holy Roman Empire, you should also do an episode on the Thirty Years War. Don't tell me there isn't a lot to be learned from one of the biggest political and military clusterfucks in history.
I thought I'd compile a list of all the errors in this video so that if anyone was interested they could see the accurate information and the debates around what much of what John says :) 1. The Diet of Worms was in 1521, not 1523; 2. The only major medieval Siege of Pavia was in 733-34, the incident John means to refer to is the Battle of Pavia which took place entirely outside the city and lasted only four hours, so in no way could be considered a siege. 3. Charles was elected as Emperor in 1519 not in 1521 4. When comparing empire size he puts it behind the Mongol Empire which was not the largest empire, but the largest continuous land empire. However Charles' Empire was not a continuous land empire. So firstly it doesn't make sense comparing them, it should be compared with the British Empire and secondly when saying largest empire about the Mongols he needs to say continuous land otherwise he is plain wrong; 5. Filipino and English are the official languages in the Philippines, not Spanish and Spanish has never been the majority language in the Philippines. 6. Most modern scholarship does not agree that Charlemagne founded the Holy Roman Empire, he founded the Carolingian Empire and was crowned emperor, but the Carolingian Empire is not continuous chronologically with what is usually considered the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman is usually considered a derivative of the Ottonian Empire and is seen to have been founded by Otto I, as this is the point at which it was continuous for 8 centuries. No emperors were crowned by the Pope again until Otto I in 963. (see more detailed explanation at the bottom). 7. On the same point as above there is another direct factual error in the video, which states that Charlesmagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor when the text of the coronation never states this, it says only that he was crowned as Roman Emperor and Augustus of the Romans; "Karolus serenissimus Augustus" and "Imperator Romanorum". 8. The empire was only ever continuous for eight centuries not ten. 9. The Holy Roman Empire is an empire, an empire simply means "an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch" - all of the different constituents of the HRE were sovereign states so by any normal definition of an empire the HRE would be considered one as Charles V exercised considerable power over other states in the Empire. There was an imperial taxation system and he had the power to levy troops from other states in the empire. Moreover in 1422 the HRE formed a standing army and while the Emperor did have limitations to his power, the same was true of other monarchs in the era. 10. Saying that "the Holy Roman Empire never had the means of levying direct taxes, or directly raising an army from it's territory" makes no sense. During the period before the "medieval revolution" in Europe, where standing armies were established no state in Europe had the ability to directly raise a standing army; armies would be raised using a system of levies where feudal subjects sent some of their knights to their overlord, this system of alliances worked in the same (if more complex) manner in the HRE. In the period after this "military revolution" the HRE did have a standing army, with the establishment of the Imperial Army in 1422, it clearly did had a professional army to the same point as other European states and the point that it wasn't raised from the entire territory is null, that wasn't how professional armies worked in any states, they were recruited and trained by a centralised power but weren't levied from the entire nation. 11. After its establishment under Otto I the Empire was also holy, it had huge control over the church, and retained the right of confirmation on the selection of Popes for several centuries, also all the Emperors were directly crowned by the Pope. Whilst defining it as Roman might be a stretch it is very difficult to define what constitutes Roman at any rate, towards the end of the Roman empire there was a huge influx of immigrants from these barbarian states and Rome's adoption of Christianity mean there are cultural links. Rome didn't suddenly collapse due to invasion, these "barbarians" had been a part of the empire for a long time and so in a way could be termed Roman. At a practical level the HRE was also a Roman Catholic empire and this is another reason why it isn't unreasonable to call it a Roman empire. 12. The 1356 Papal Bull did not establish the electoral system of the Holy Roman Empire, it formed a new one the difference being the Emperor no longer needed the consent of all the electors but a simple majority, it had always been an electoral position; 13. Saying that Charles V troops 'managed' to sack Rome in 1527 is rather misleading, as it implies it was something he wanted; this was actually done against his instructions by his mutineering troops. 14. Luther's New Testament was published in 1522, so he is correct it was after the Diet of Worms, but it is before the mistaken date he gave for the Diet of Worms; 15. It is usually spelled Habsburg, not Hapsburg; 16. When he says the states which the Holy Roman Empire constitutes today, he mentions Czechoslovakia, which ceased to be a nation in 1993. Furthermore the map doesn't actually show Czechoslovakia, it shows the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 17. Personally I would probably try to use words like Germanic rather than German for Charles cultural identity, because the concept of Germany didn't really exist (but that's more personal preference) 18. Points have also been made that Charles V did not see himself as the Holy Roman Emperor, but primarily as the King of the Spanish which was his primary title and where he resided for most of his life. 19. The video implies that Charlemagne wanted to be crowned by the Pope, but this is a matter of huge historical contention, as the coronation was in many ways a demonstration by the Pope of his power over Charlemagne and asserted his right to select the leader of Europe. Indeed Charlemagne and the Franks in many regards did not want to be associated with the Romans, who they saw as overly oppressive and were glad to claim heritage from those to overthrew them. It appears that Charlemagne was not aware of the Pope's intentions to crown him (though this is still debated) and after the coronation he disliked using the title directly bestowed upon him "Imperator Romanorum". 20. The counter-reformation really wasn't Charles response it was the Church's response to the Protestant reformation, it was Pope Paul III who initiated the first Council of Trent and while Charles V certainly played an important part "make his response, the Catholic Counter-Reformation" is an over-statement that doesn't acknowledge the role of the Papacy and of holy orders. 21. The sack of Rome in 1527 certainly played an important role in illuminating the Church's failings and may well have influenced the desire to reform away from overly extravagant building works, but in no regard can it be seen as entirely responsible for ending the Italian Renaissance, which didn't end until around 1550 and was far more damaged by the Italian Wars 22. Prior to the Ottoman conquest of Hungary it was not Habsburg, it was ruled by a Hungarian king Louis II. Whilst the Habsburgs had an agreement with Louis to take control of Hungary on the event of his death without an heir (they were related through marriage), the dynasty preceeding Louis' death was not Hungarian. After the Ottoman conquest of the majority of Hungary the Habsburgs did take over the remaining Hungarian land so " over the formerly Hapsburg territory of Hungary." is incorrect, it should state that they gained control over an area which would have been Habsburg if the Ottomans had not won. 23. John says that football hadn't been invented in 1550, but there are actually detailed descriptions of the game of football being played in Europe as early as around 1174-1183 by William FitzStephen. There are numerous descriptions of the game football in the centuries that followed and there are even records stating that Henry VIII (Charles V contemporary) had a pair of football boots made for him. 6. (continued) Charlemagne did not exercise control over any of Italy except the small area from about Milan to Tuscany and his (carolingian) empire is not chronologically or geographically linked to the Holy Roman Empire talked about in this video, which extends far further east and included large swathes of Italian territory (at least initially) but does not include the French areas which comprised most of Charlemagne's empire. As I mentioned earlier it is not chronologically continous either, and neither is it politically or legally continous, Charlesmagne's empire used Agnatic Primogeniture whereas the Holy Roman Empire examined here used an elective succession system where all the Emperor's were crowned by the Papacy. Furthermore the culture of Charlesmagne's empire was far more Frankish, whereas the later Holy Roman Empi,vre consisted of a wide variety of cultures that arose from the so-called "Barbarian Kingdoms" and the initial emperors were all Saxon. Certainly you could use the speech to classify Charlemagne's empire as a Roman Empire, though doing purely on the basis of that coronation is still tenous and as I've shown it lacks many of the necessary qualifications. I think you would find it extremely difficult to claim that he is the founder of the Holy Roman Empire talked about in this video; which is rather different geographically, politically, chronologically, culturally and economically. While Charlemagne may certainly have been a Holy Roman Emperor, he in no manner can be seen as the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, which is what this video asserts. Certainly there are many more points about things that ought to be included, but I tried to focus on things that were directly wrong and should been amended rather than topics that can easily be covered by new videos.
Aurelius Noble One more thing: the pope crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor to undermine the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire due to a misogynistic dispute he had with the Empress Irene (one of the most badass people in history imho) who he claimed had no power over him and the the Roman throne was actually vacant
ScienceInc. Malachi then it's even more incorrect, as between 12th and 20th century there was no Czech "anything", those lands were just a state of the Holy Roman Empire, and they were called Kingdom of Bohemia, with Moravia on the side
+666Tomato666 Czech Republic exists. Slovakia exists. Because they both exist simultaneously, and have done in each of their respective historic incarnations, czechoslovakia exists when you are referring to their combined geographic areas.
+Thisold Hatte But why would you? Throughout history the two countries were parts of one state only for like 70 years in the 20th century (And in Great Moravia I suppose but that was the 9th cetury). During the whole 2nd millennium, Slovakia was mostly part of Hungary, so saying Czechoslovakia in relation to the middle ages is just riddiculous. Makes even less sense than someone getting confused and saying it whilst referring to present days.
I was thinking more CK2 since I've been playing that recently. HRE is a stronger and more unified state in that. Voltaire was writing of the HRE when it was decentralized to the point of largely independent vassals in the rise of nation states. Feudalism is a hard thing to describe but the HRE did not make the changes required to become a strong nation. In game terms the other nations were high crown authority, high centralization and primogeniture and the HRE was low, low and elective. There is nothing wrong with elective monarchy but it did cause chaos for the succession which did not allow for the HRE to unify with large vassals bickering over the title of emperor. Also death to the successors of Charlemagne. DEATH TO THE KARLINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do one about the Byzantine empire. The topic is severly underrepresented in many world history narratives, yet immensly important. Should be an interesting subject for history students.
By the way, the HRE had been an elected monarchy ever since Charlemagne's dynasty died off. The first non-Karling emperor, Otto, was elected, as were most emperors after him, even those who came from the same dynasty. Granted, in most cases the elections were a formality, but there were also plenty of times when the German princes and electors simply declared an emperor deposed and elected a counter-candidate. (In the end, whose election was legit tended to be decided on the battlefield)
+Aaron Lecciones Actually yes he was a failue but he was doomed to fail, the electors didn't want him and he forced his way unto the imperial throne. From that moment he had no chance of succeeding. The problems didn't start with him it started with earlier generations of habsburgs trying to create a habsburg empire inside the empire.
@@DaDunge The protestants, the French jealous monarchy, and the mad king of England Henry VIII, caused the collapse of this promising empire. Could you imagine uniting all Christian Western kingdoms into one so powerful to kick out the ottomans from Constantinople, and reconquer Palestine and North of Africa (including Egypt)? Thanks to Protestantism and jealous kings, this never happened.
@@carlosmarcial6201 No it happened because the Habsburgs never understood the most basic thing about running an empire, if you want your nobles on board with it you need to show them that the success of the empire is in their best interest. Protestantism didn't cause the political schism in the holy roman empire the political schism caused the reformation.
Actually, the Spanish Empire got a little bigger after they dumped the Holy Roman Empire. They eventually took Portugal and all their territories as well as the Netherlands and their territories amounting to more land than the Holy Roman Empire. (And Spain actually never let go of the HRE, Charles handed it off to his brother, another Spaniard. Curious)
mafiacat88 How is CK2 more difficult than EU4? Ever try an ironman Ryukyu world conquest? In CK2 I went from single county to ruling half of Europe in 4 generations. I prefer EU4 but I do wish that the CK2 raiding mechanic was somehow in EU4 (though probably wouldn't make much sense)
2:24 you said that the HRE was a "failed state" yet it existed for a thousand years and was the dominant force in Europe for some time... Sounds more successful than a lot of countries
Ok, I think I get this. Charlemagne got this HRE thing going by understanding that it had to be sold to the everyday man. Much of what I've learned about life in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, the experience day-to-day was in the very shadow of a former power, one that lasted a length of time that is difficult to imagine. People lived their lives often juxtaposition to the ruins of greatness to this very day. The grew up with stories describing how the quality of life was better under the Romans.Or at least there was some kind of order and rule. Clovis united the Francs, whom were all kneeling before a singular and absolute power, and the Russians were constantly trying to legitimize Tsars, a title invoking a certain Roman emperor. So Voltaire makes a fun point, but the Holy Roman Empire, in its inception, was holy because it was bound by a common faith, Roman because it imbued the idea of absolute authority that always seems to get things done, also, if I understand correctly, included the Italian Peninsula for some time early on(?), and finally was also imperial, because only in an Empire can one man screw things up so royally....?
Rome inspired all the kingdoms, nations and empires that came after her. Even the ottomans and the arabs. Today the USA too. Without rome civilization wouldn't exist.
Well, there are theories that the pope might have given him the title against his will. I mean, taking the title didn't give him any more power, nor enable him to take any land. Instead, it technically made him the popes vassal. The pope gave him the honorific by surprise, which would have looked very very bad for Charlie if he turned down what was supposedly the legacy of Rome. However, this therefore positioned the pope as someone who actually HAD the power to do that, which meant that they had authority greater than Charlemagne. (It was also awkward since the legitimate eastern part of the Roman empire was still alive and very strong at the time. They didn't take kindly to the fact that this guy with a ceremonial title just tried to give away their empire) Cue hundreds of years of the popes meddling in European politics. Of course that's one view, historians argue on if it's true or not.
Error 3, Mr. Green: The HRE never ever had anything in Western Ukraine. Austria-Hungary did (only quite late, after the partition of Poland) but not the Empire, whose borders were quite specific: Germany (incl. Bohemia but not Slovakia, and also several other lands like Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and parts of France), Italy (not including the South) and Burgundy (SE France, parts of Switzerland). It did expand eastward into Poland and also retreated in Italy but in no case reached Ukraine even remotely.
Love the series, but I can't remember if there was an episode on how exactly feudalism works... I think that actually explaining how it works would make the understanding of medieval Europe much easier. If there is an episode about that, I apologise, I'll have to go through the playlist!
Dear people of the USA, please, stop saying Czechoslovakia. We split up in 1993 for God's sake. Update your maps and history books once in a while. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist the same way Soviet Union and Yugoslavia don't.
ThePooper3000 I don't know if you're actually kidding or not. In case you're serious, no, they really don't. :/ Both were devided into independent states.
There's currently a spanish ongoing tv series called Charles the emperor king which is more or less accurate. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to dig in the subject (that is if you know spanish and like detailed history)
Thank you for that episode. In France, we study François 1er, and then we focus on internal politics under Henry IV. Charles V, or Charles Quint as we generally call him, is always a shadowy monarch, influential by his name, yet we never see his achievements. The lucky ones who start learning Spanish, take on the following of the story with Felipe II, son of Charles, and king of Spain. So as it is, this course just filled a whole in my head where it is possible to connect the dots. History really is a mutli-sided mirror !
I like how he just skips over the fact that Charles was first and foremost, King of Castile(Spain). Holy Roman Emperor was just one of his many additional titles, not his main one. He's not a Habsburg. He's a Spanish Habsurg which were separate from the Austrian line, not to mention far more powerful due to the global hegemony of the Spanish Army. How's Charles of Spain not Spanish? This guy was half Spanish. He had more Spanish ancestry than Queen Victoria(of Hanover) had English. He inherited the title of King of Castile through his Spanish ancestry. The title of Holy Roman Emperor, on the other hand, was simply something he bought. And the part where he generalized Spaniards as cruel to Indians is another double standard considering the fact that the British policy towards American Indians was outright extermination and Queen Isabella before Charles tried to improve the treatment of natives.
It has become acceptable in the English-speaking world to ignore, downplay, or completely omit Spanish history. I have a bone to pick with my fellow historians.
John NoNameGibbon Definitely! It's clear that the Black Legend is based in real abuses, but they were magnified and difused by English, French and Dutch (natural enemies of Spain those times). It is time to say all the truth, the good things as well as the bad ones. Good luck, there is a lot of work left.
I like how you tell the stories in a practical way and make it fun. It's also historically accurate. I remember learning about the Hapsburgs all through my Danube river cruise. Also I remember thinking "weren't they the ones who sacked Rome on the Tudors"? I remember our tour guide showing a statue and saying how they were inbred. I seen some of the same faces on this video.
@@miguelpadeiro762 ...and what about Germany or France? How many territories invades in America? French people in Haiti is a very funny story. It ends pretty well. :P.
Brilliant video, these really help me studying A-level History; but everyone just note that the Diet of Worms was actually in 1521 rather than 1523 which is stated in the video. Keep up the good work CrashCourse!
Love the series as always, John and Team! However, I found the theme of trying to determine whether Charles I was a good ruler not very useful. Perhaps you could do a Big History episode on the concept of good leadership. What Charles I saw as "good" motivated his complicated choices, but it certainly isn't what we see as "good" today, or even compared to another culture of his own time. I can imagine that episode's discussion involving Just War and other fun debates :D
Funny thing about what he said about the empires moto '' Plus Ultra'', apart from being everything that he said it was also a PUN. There was a Latin proverb that referred to the Atlantic coast of europe ''Non Plus Ultra'' that means nothing beyond, they believed that that was the last land before the outer sea and the fall from the flat earth. So when Colombus discovered America and Spain was unified the motto became Plus Ultra as a way of saying basically: ''So there actually is something beyond, but we were the only ones brave enough to find it and now we are the only ones getting rich, suck it!!!!'' to the rest of Europe. You've got to love Spanish rulers' humour.
Patricia a Except the Portuguese were still the ones dominating the spice trade, and the Spanish never had the idea to go west (that would be Columbus). Also, it was said there was nothing south of Cabo Bojador in Morocco, but that did not stop Gil Eanes from going beyond it. So please don't say the Spanish were the only ones brave enough to "go beyond".
And I have to ask, how was he a failure, exactly? His son, Philip, commanded an even larger empire than his own. Was Queen Victoria a failure? I guess he was only a failure if you judge him on what he aspired to be, the Ruler of Earth, instead of what he was. But that's _so_ stupid, Neal (the writer). All kings and Queens are failures by that strange standard.
If You áre talking about Charles V. Well he failed to stop the Reformation. Failed to unite Western Europe and central europe. Failed to stop the enslavement and the brutality done to the natives Failed to balance economics and left the Spanish empire in debt
"Todo buén Español debería mear mirando hacia inglaterra"..frase de don Blas de Lezo (batalla de Cartagena de indias;inglaterra 30.000 soldados ingleses y 200 barcos de guerra, España ; 4 barcos y 3.000 soldados Españoles= derrota inglesa..11.000 muertos ingleses y la flota inglesa destruida; España;1000muertos . Un Respeto a la Historia.Un respeto a España.
10.29: Hungary wasn't a formerly Habsburg territory. Charles inherited Hungary after the last Hungarian king of Hungary fell in the battle of Mohacs 1526, because the latter was married to Charles' sister Mary. But henceforth the Habsburg had a legal claim to Hungary.
I have always wondered where the quote mentioned that the Holy Roman Empire "was not holy, nor Roman, or an empire" came from. But, when I was in Modern World History class from high school, my teacher, who is now retired, had said to me and the students that "there is no such thing" as the Holy Roman Empire, never was.
It's a historical term used to denote the territories ruled by the Habsburg family during this era, especially relevant during Charles V's reign seeing as how he was ruling over the territorial Holy Roman Empire and the colonial Spanish Empire. These territories were inextricably linked 2 Habsburg dynasty, where as what Royal House sat on the British throne by the 19th century did not really matter. The terminology is a bit arbitrary but helps historians to clarify and categorize these times and places in history.
@@DisorderlyFashion "colonial Spanish Empire". Dude: Spain Empire wasn't England. Spain never established colonies in America. Spain established VICEKINGDOMS in America. They were autonomous, with laws and with their own viceking. These vicekingdoms were very prosperous during 400 years.
Qué hizo por ti, Cordero (nunca un apellido fue mejor elegido), qué hizo por la gente? Repartió tierras a los pobres, evitó que los ricos nos robaran? No, se limitó a destruir la constitución castellana, creando las bases de los problemas actuales de España, seguir saqueando América, las bases de los problemas actuales de América Latina, y producir la mayor masácre bélica en la historia de la humanidad antes de las guerras mundiales por culpa de una discusión filósofico-teológica con un tal Lutero (con el que estaba de acuerdo en masacrar y oprimir a los pobres sin embargo).
Error 4, Mr. Green: Charlemagne did not name his Empire that way. He was crowned Roman Emperor, full stop. It was only the Ottos of the 10th century who created the HRE by merging Germany (their home country, earlier East Francia), Brugundy and Italy. Under them it was a true empire, up to the point that they would have defeated the Mongols (!!!) if Gengis Khan had not died and their conquest of Europe would have continued, but gradually imperial power disintegrated into feudal contract madness.
Sure? I thought the first mention of "sacrum" in combination with the empire was in the 12th century under the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, becoming the formal title some hundred years after that.
Well, I just checked the Wikipedia article and seems indeed a bit confuse (different documents would use different wordings, etc.) I'm no erudite so I can't say much more on this exact detail.
You say that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't much of an empire because it was too diverse and spread out. However, isn't every Empire diverse and spread out?
Welcome to double standards. And it wasn't really the "Holy Roman Empire" it was just a region. And Spain owned it. It was part of the Spanish Empire. Not the "Hapsburg Empire". That's stupid.
If one was logically consistent then they would probably consider the Mayan civilization to be an Empire. Both "empires" were not remotely centralized and were comprised of several practically sovereign constituents.
John NoNameGibbon and what are you talking about a region that's the stupid thing I have ever heared. Both were different COUNTRIES with the same Emporer and he was German cause Burgundy is a Germanic state and first the Burgunds lived in the middle of modern day Germany. SO LEARN HISTORY
the slovaks wished to separate and now a lot of them are moving to the czech republic for education and work. if the country had wanted to stay united, it could have done just that, no one was forcing them
+Sam Urai Actually, something this video did not mention is that while Charles' army sacked Rome, nuns were raped and sold into slavery - Spanish and German mercenaries butchered the Swiss Guard in a bid to murder the Pope himself. It is speculated (Though we couldn't possibly know) that the shame of what happened in Rome motivated Charles to abdicate. On top of that, Charles' hardline stance against Protestantism was drilled into his sons and by extension the Habsburg Dynasty at large. This legacy of protestant persecution is what caused the Thirty Years War - the third most devastating war in history. Of course, you could also just use history you don't understand as a pretext for casual racism.
Slubbergully you ignore the fact that everything you mentioned revolved around the protestant reformation. or are you seriously implying the CATHOLIC hre and emperor are responsible for mercenaries raping CATHOLIC nuns and wanted to kill the POPE? -_-
The Italian Wars did not revolve around Protestantism. It was an extension of the rivalry between the de Valois dynasty and the von Habsburg dynasty. Both of which were filled with Catholics; both of which were fighting in Italy full of Catholics. Where are you getting the "fact" that anything the Habsburgs did in Italy had anything to do with the Protestants? Why are you suggesting that the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope got along in this time period? They were quite literally at war with one another due to the League of Cognac.
It wasn't a state proper but certainly had many properties of a state so using the moniker isn't incorrect. as for him inheriting it, that has nothing to do with my comment. cheers
I was impressed by his ability to be so ineffectual. Also why are you parroting my word back to me as if I was unaware of what i said. You needed clarification, not me
One thing I have noticed in the world is what I call "Linear History". Linear history is curtain parts of history that is going to happen in every region of the world. Take nationalism, human rights and revolutions. Hundreds of years ago human rights activist 1st appeared, 100 years later there was revolutions, then nationalism. Now in the Middle East and Central Asia we see human rights activist like Al-Hathlool and Malala speaking out for basic human rights(Those are the only two I could think of off the top of my head). There has also been revolutions, the Arab Spring. This has also worked the other way having the Golden Age of the Arab World happen before the Rennisannce. Now this is just a very basic theory that I myself have come up with, I have no history major or anything so I am not the most reliable source of information. Feel free to criticizes or improve as you see fit. Also I'm not a great speller so there is probably spelling errors.
I'd agree with the "spread like a virus" point as a factual statement, and with the not-hegelian (cuz its metaphysical) but maybe sort of technological interpretation (good ideas spreading like technology). However one should be aware that this can also not happen, for a long, long time, or "ever" (so far) for many many places and things (ideas). Take the idea of God, for example, that sure has been thought of as a candidate for a superior understanding of reality, but sure as hell didnt appear everywhere, and not in the same form where it did. Now some would claim atheism might be one of those ideas that will "definitely" spread like wildfire, but many smart new-age and modern spiritual people would reject that.
sad he didn't include one of the biggest helpers in the Vienna siege, which was the Polish Commonwealth....and i hope he includes the Commonwealth in it
Dark999Death Errr no. Poland is a country that had the misfortune to be placed between Russia and Germany. It wasn't the English anyway, more like the British.
***** the idea of a unified germany came from Arminius after he beat the romans in 9AD and because of that, they killed him. that is now 2005 years ago. how old is the idea of poland if it's so much older?
Technically the Holy Roman Empire didn't exist until Otto in 962. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor, not specifically Holy Roman Emperor. The latter title came out of the ruins of Charlemagne's empire.
+TheCommunistColin Pretty sure he was crowned roman emperor, the holy part didn't really come until the HRE broke ties with the papacy. Otto very much usurped the crown of Charlamagne, though the person who held it before him didn't really rule over anything.
+TheCommunistColin Both were crowned "Emperor of the Romans", the "Holy" wasn't part of it. The Imperial title wasn't connected with a certain territory for centuries to come. It was just a title that indicated that he who held it was chosen by god to rule over all of Western Christendom. Technically, an English or Swedish monarch could have been "Emperor of the Romans" as well.
Fredrik Dunge Yeah, there have been foreign contenders to the thrown every now and then. Charles V barely defeated the king of France over it, and he himself was also a foreigner who barely spoke German. As long as you had the means to bribe the electoral princes you could aspire to be crowned. But that's at a time when there was already no other way to be crowned emperor without being crowned king of Germany beforehand. What I was talking about was the 9th and 10th century when the imperial title was still being claimed by nobility from different different parts of Europe, like the couple of Italian emperors.
Sean Kane so the entire British Empire, that spanned the globe, that the sun still hasn't set on (seriously, look it up), the largest in history, dwarfing even the conquests of the Great Khan, wasn't all that big?
Sean Kane they were controlled by British bureaucrats in constant contact with London, while the day to day running was autonomous, their orders came from Britain, Parliament was still in control
Like how nowadays the queen could overthrow parliament if they did anything like say tax them a decent amount they could and most likely would overthrow their British ruler (sun never sets is pretty cool though)
I really like how revolutionary interesting this way of teaching and learning is, especially combined with the aspects of youtube as a medium. So everyone that contributes to this show is fantastic! But before. you guys used to mention everyone in the outro, why did you stop doing that? That was so charming and it showed that you value the participatory aspect of making a show, as well as making anything, such as history for example! So bring back the naming-every-single-person-thing, that was a really nice display of idealism!
Charles V was not French, hé was born in Gent, today Belgium. In 1500 however it was: 1. Part of the Holy Roman Empire 2. Part of the Netherlands 3. Under Burgundy rule. Never under French rule or part of the French Empire
@@richardroggeveen961 Yeah, but Burgundy family were subordinates of the French kingdom - technically. I guess Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Spain should have inheritted the crown to Mary of Portugal - their daughter... So Portugal and Spain would be one today. HRE was a completely mess.
@@mikel6059 lies about spanish history britain never controlled europe the most powerful continent ever but guess what spain did control europe the most powerful continent ever
How wasn't the HRE an empire? An Empire is defined as: "an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state." This is exactly what the HRE was! Today, the HRE would be made up of Germany, Austria, Czech, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and eastern France and this "extensive group of states or countries" would be "ruled over by a single monarch", much like it was under Charles V...
+Luke of Lancs I guess he was referring to the inefficiency of feudal rulership in the middle ages and the sectionalism of the Early Modern era. An empire is mostly thought to be governed directly by a monarch having a standing army, a capital, direct taxation and legislature.
Lujoja it wasnt an empire because every single country maintained full autonamy, aside from VERY small tax subsidies and aiding in foreign wars. hell, the holy roman states fought more wars amobgst themselves than the HRE did with foreign countries
While the Holy Roman Empire itself was ruled over by the Emperor, each and every state within it not only had its own laws and codes and from the Reformation onwards even their own religions at times, even to the point where they had their own Dukes and Kings in charge of those nations. The Holy Roman Empire fit a very loose definition of an Empire, and was more like a confederation that was barely bound together at all at times.
A rather nice episode ! I study a bit of HRE history, mainly the czech, and hungarian parts, and having the other side of the coin, especialy under Charles V is interesting. And also, bravo for the show ; it is at the same time simple enough to understand if you didn't studied the subject before, and plenty of facts, quote or quick analysis that almost always make you learn something, or requestion yourself on a subject you thought you knew ! Thanks !
Ah come one. You selected a single sentence out of a video about Charles V just because he didn't mention the stupid british empire... You know what, never mind.
Karl Karlos if I should never mind your comment, you didn't even need to post your comment. By the way I am not anglophile or anglo-supremacist in any way, just pointing out what seemed to me a strange omission.
It can be properly called the Holy Roman Empire: Holy for it defended the pope, Roman for it ruled the Italian pennesula, Empire for it ruled over many Kingdoms, Duchies, Counties, Baronies, and multiple culture groups. It was Das Heilige Römische Reich.
karl seider Truth. But Holy because the Emperor was crowned by the Pope. Though technically to remain Holy it would need each Emperor to submit to the Pope and to be crowned by him.
google search: what's the difference between an empire and a kingdom Empire: a group of countries that are controlled by one ruler / government. King: the (male) ruler of an independent state / country that has a royal family. Kingdom: a country ruled by a king (or queen). The difference seems to be;Apr 2, 2012 Also see: www.diffen.com/difference/Emperor_vs_King the HRE was an empire, there are some exeptions, but there all ways will be.
I guess by definition it is kinda of is a empire so I'll give you that. But it was the worst empire by most standards. The members of the HRE were constantly fighting with each other, sometimes literally going to war with one another. The only time they got along was when a outside threat appeared like the French or ottomans. That and as john green stated in the video the emperor couldn't tax his subjects. The reason I compared it to a broken UN or NATO is that it acts more like them instead of a proper empires of history. As for the other to parts of the name its was holy because of the strong ties to the catholic church and Christianity in general and I'm pretty sure we can both agree on it was NOT roman at all. To me it will not be a serious empire, maybe that is because nearly every other empire in history was much better at being empires than it. Thats why I use EU4 as a example of what it was like inside. That's my opinion on the HRE in general.
mrsirwester wester almost everything on earth is older than the usa. but as an American, we don't give a fuck. we say whatever the fuck we want, so go play soccer
I don't understand why the media makes such a big to do about Henry VIII, but you never hear anything about Charles V who lived and ruled at the same time and had one of the largest empires in history. This guy's life was far more interesting than Henry's in my opinion.
Charles just needed more imperial authority to pass those reforms.
Sandouras And less reform desire.
The sad part is that noone will get that one :(
Because the HRE minors and the pope are dumb.
Especially after all those Italian princes shadow kingdomed outta there
haha nice eu4
I think he was awesome.
I tried ruling Holy Roman Empire in Crusader Kings 2 and failed.
+ville307 You failed rulling the empire in CK2? Well you will panic and run when you try to rule the One in Europa Universalis IV
+DiarioAburrimiento It's a nightmare
+ville307 try running the roman empire in total war attila
I tried for few turns but it got too hard.
But I actually won the Eastern Rome campaign on normal difficulty.
+ville307 I totally feel you, it's even hard in Europa...and it's like so much harder in Crusader Kings!
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."
Charles V
carlos el emperador fue el mejor
ExGavalonnj pretty sure napoleon said that not charles
BlackWolf9988 Napoleon might be copying Charles V at his time tho, albeit he should speak French to both genders and Italian for his family's children, a lesson his nephew should learn
It is total war stuff
I though French was thy lingua franca of lOVE 😚
Exceptions in each continent:
Europe: Switzerland
Asia: The Mongols
The Americas: Brazil
Oceania: ???
Antarctica: Antarctica
Africa: Somalia or Egypt?
+kwadwo baidoo Africa: Ethiopia
Brasilians also has Hapsburg blood. Thats where our yellow cames from. Search for House Bragança and Hapsburg.
Gildo Cravo some yeah but not every Brazilian. it doesn't explain the yellow colour
+kwadwo baidoo I mean, our royal family has. And, yes, it daoes explain. Search for it. Green from Bragança and yellow from Hapsburg.
Pedro I of Brazil and IV of Portugal has maried Maria Leopoldina from Austria.
France's Francis of France
... the first.
Evelynn Whitebridge France’s Francis is France’s fanciest Francis in France
F
F for Francis I of france
The ruler of Spain and Germany, which when united became Spermany.
Germany alone wasn't united as germany. A unity between germany and spain was unthinkable. That's why it was a shitty empire. Noone liked Charles, he didn't even speak german and claimed rule over germany, in a time where Luther and Guttenberg printed the Bible in german and for the first time created a national self awareness in the german people.
He will feel the warm, moist might of the Imperial Sperman army.
Jadinass It's a pun... XD
As a Hetalia fangirl, I must admit that I giggled quite a bit at your comment.
(At the same time that I was going lol nope because GerIta and Spamano)
This post is really messing with my ships bc now I'm think of spermany..... XD (hello fellow Hetalian!!! ^ ^)
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse."
dharmesh gundarniya It was a quote by Charles V.
+Russell Johnson Actually it was De Locutione who said:
"When Emperor Charles V used to say, as I hear, that the language of the Germans was military; that of the Spaniards pertained to love; that of the Italians was oratorical; that of the French was noble"
Your version is a much later change.
Fredrik Dunge I knew the comment was not directly stated by Charles V, but as De Locutione states, "When Emperor Charles V used to say, as I hear..."
Md2tw quotes
@@another90daystochangethis34 Not true. That's French propaganda against Habsburgs family. The jealous French and Protestants.
I can’t find anybody who’s said it yet, so I will.
12:10 PLUS ULTRAAAAAAAAA!
I just decided to look. I'm glad I'm not the only anime trash here
I was thinking Star Wars where Palpatine just decided to say UNLIMITED POWER in Latin. 🤷🤪
!Plus Ultra!
COMBOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
PLUS ULTRA!!!!!!!!!
2 things I got from this video.
1) that pesky Martin Luther is still causing trouble, sneakin' 'round the globe
2) Brazilians are the Mongols of America
Actulally, no Brazil has almost never gone to war.
TehGodLord As in they are the exception to everything.
Well Brazil did participate in WWII some
Nations that jumped on the bandwagon in 1944 or 1945 don't count.
William Stockhecker "I was into fighting the Nazi's before it was cool" - UK 04/02/1945...during it's hipster phase
Charles II of Spain is one of my favourite historical monarchs. You can have as many as 64 great, great, great, great, great grandparents. Charles II had two.
Charles was actually a very successful monarch in Spain. He expanded Spain so it became the biggest empire in Europe, had huge quantities of bullion shipped in which helped him fund his foreign policy, Protestantism was literally destroyed in Spain and remained that way for Philip's reign, and his political authority was almost absolute.
His only problems were that the Holy Roman Empire was a black hole for resources (for which Spain suffered) and his attention, being absent for more years than he was present as the king of Spain, and the problems of inflation (and the latter was not even recognised/known of at the time!)
Charles probably wanted to be Holy Roman Emperor for the increased force limit.
Halo CE Magnum EU4 ;)
Halo CE Magnum And to make one more reform.
His most important realm was not the HRE, the Archduchy of Austria, the Duchy of Burgundy, or the Italian realms of Milan, Naples, Sicily or Sardinia. It was SPAIN. He was born in Ghent but lived most of his adult life in Spain. He died there and he allowed his son Felipe to grow up in Spain not the HRE
True, but the title of the Holy Roman Emperor was the most glamorous and thus he would style himself that instead of a "mere" king of Spain.
Henning85 Spain could flatten the HRE if it wanted to, though.
Samsung Samsung hmm if Charles V had to deal a huge German,Dutch,Swiss,Belgian,Italian,Magyar,and Czech united revolution, would Spain crush East-Central Europe by arms only?
@@Siegbert85 The Spanish territories were actually the most important parts of his empire, and continued to be increasingly important over time.
@@cesarperezargota Of course. The HRE was an unruleable mess, especially during his time. But the title of emperor had the most renown in the Christian world view.
Phillip II of Spain (Charles V' son) was a bigger emperor than his dad. The expression, "the empire on which the sun never sets," was coined during Philip's time to reflect the extent of his dominion.
Luis Ghlezs felipe was king, many times king but not emperor
@@victorkumps6846 Philip II had an enormous Global Empire. "King" is only a formal term.
@@javierslytherin9898 Yeah, like I said. Legally not an emperor. I am well aware and agree with u that he rules what was in fact an empire.
And he lost a war against dutch swamp people
@@thewienerwolf Philipp did not "lose" the war because he died long before the war was over, and while he was alive he wasn't really "losing" it either. As a matter of fact, the first time the Dutch won a battle against the Spanish was at Niewport in 1600, two years after Philipp's death.
And those "swamp" people happened to be the richest people in Europe, and some of the most innovative, so don't discredit their worth.
Since you guys have now talked about the Holy Roman Empire, you should also do an episode on the Thirty Years War. Don't tell me there isn't a lot to be learned from one of the biggest political and military clusterfucks in history.
Charles probably wanted to be Holy Roman Emperor just for the extra taxes, force limit and diplomatic relation
and alot of trade power in the North Sea trade node
Angus Sclater in what game?
Eu4
lmao
Hey a fellow paradox games player
I thought I'd compile a list of all the errors in this video so that if anyone was interested they could see the accurate information and the debates around what much of what John says :)
1. The Diet of Worms was in 1521, not 1523;
2. The only major medieval Siege of Pavia was in 733-34, the incident John means to refer to is the Battle of Pavia which took place entirely outside the city and lasted only four hours, so in no way could be considered a siege.
3. Charles was elected as Emperor in 1519 not in 1521
4. When comparing empire size he puts it behind the Mongol Empire which was not the largest empire, but the largest continuous land empire. However Charles' Empire was not a continuous land empire. So firstly it doesn't make sense comparing them, it should be compared with the British Empire and secondly when saying largest empire about the Mongols he needs to say continuous land otherwise he is plain wrong;
5. Filipino and English are the official languages in the Philippines, not Spanish and Spanish has never been the majority language in the Philippines.
6. Most modern scholarship does not agree that Charlemagne founded the Holy Roman Empire, he founded the Carolingian Empire and was crowned emperor, but the Carolingian Empire is not continuous chronologically with what is usually considered the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman is usually considered a derivative of the Ottonian Empire and is seen to have been founded by Otto I, as this is the point at which it was continuous for 8 centuries. No emperors were crowned by the Pope again until Otto I in 963. (see more detailed explanation at the bottom).
7. On the same point as above there is another direct factual error in the video, which states that Charlesmagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor when the text of the coronation never states this, it says only that he was crowned as Roman Emperor and Augustus of the Romans; "Karolus serenissimus Augustus" and "Imperator Romanorum".
8. The empire was only ever continuous for eight centuries not ten.
9. The Holy Roman Empire is an empire, an empire simply means "an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch" - all of the different constituents of the HRE were sovereign states so by any normal definition of an empire the HRE would be considered one as Charles V exercised considerable power over other states in the Empire. There was an imperial taxation system and he had the power to levy troops from other states in the empire. Moreover in 1422 the HRE formed a standing army and while the Emperor did have limitations to his power, the same was true of other monarchs in the era.
10. Saying that "the Holy Roman Empire never had the means of levying direct taxes, or directly raising an army from it's territory" makes no sense. During the period before the "medieval revolution" in Europe, where standing armies were established no state in Europe had the ability to directly raise a standing army; armies would be raised using a system of levies where feudal subjects sent some of their knights to their overlord, this system of alliances worked in the same (if more complex) manner in the HRE. In the period after this "military revolution" the HRE did have a standing army, with the establishment of the Imperial Army in 1422, it clearly did had a professional army to the same point as other European states and the point that it wasn't raised from the entire territory is null, that wasn't how professional armies worked in any states, they were recruited and trained by a centralised power but weren't levied from the entire nation.
11. After its establishment under Otto I the Empire was also holy, it had huge control over the church, and retained the right of confirmation on the selection of Popes for several centuries, also all the Emperors were directly crowned by the Pope. Whilst defining it as Roman might be a stretch it is very difficult to define what constitutes Roman at any rate, towards the end of the Roman empire there was a huge influx of immigrants from these barbarian states and Rome's adoption of Christianity mean there are cultural links. Rome didn't suddenly collapse due to invasion, these "barbarians" had been a part of the empire for a long time and so in a way could be termed Roman. At a practical level the HRE was also a Roman Catholic empire and this is another reason why it isn't unreasonable to call it a Roman empire.
12. The 1356 Papal Bull did not establish the electoral system of the Holy Roman Empire, it formed a new one the difference being the Emperor no longer needed the consent of all the electors but a simple majority, it had always been an electoral position;
13. Saying that Charles V troops 'managed' to sack Rome in 1527 is rather misleading, as it implies it was something he wanted; this was actually done against his instructions by his mutineering troops.
14. Luther's New Testament was published in 1522, so he is correct it was after the Diet of Worms, but it is before the mistaken date he gave for the Diet of Worms;
15. It is usually spelled Habsburg, not Hapsburg;
16. When he says the states which the Holy Roman Empire constitutes today, he mentions Czechoslovakia, which ceased to be a nation in 1993. Furthermore the map doesn't actually show Czechoslovakia, it shows the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
17. Personally I would probably try to use words like Germanic rather than German for Charles cultural identity, because the concept of Germany didn't really exist (but that's more personal preference)
18. Points have also been made that Charles V did not see himself as the Holy Roman Emperor, but primarily as the King of the Spanish which was his primary title and where he resided for most of his life.
19. The video implies that Charlemagne wanted to be crowned by the Pope, but this is a matter of huge historical contention, as the coronation was in many ways a demonstration by the Pope of his power over Charlemagne and asserted his right to select the leader of Europe. Indeed Charlemagne and the Franks in many regards did not want to be associated with the Romans, who they saw as overly oppressive and were glad to claim heritage from those to overthrew them. It appears that Charlemagne was not aware of the Pope's intentions to crown him (though this is still debated) and after the coronation he disliked using the title directly bestowed upon him "Imperator Romanorum".
20. The counter-reformation really wasn't Charles response it was the Church's response to the Protestant reformation, it was Pope Paul III who initiated the first Council of Trent and while Charles V certainly played an important part "make his response, the Catholic Counter-Reformation" is an over-statement that doesn't acknowledge the role of the Papacy and of holy orders.
21. The sack of Rome in 1527 certainly played an important role in illuminating the Church's failings and may well have influenced the desire to reform away from overly extravagant building works, but in no regard can it be seen as entirely responsible for ending the Italian Renaissance, which didn't end until around 1550 and was far more damaged by the Italian Wars
22. Prior to the Ottoman conquest of Hungary it was not Habsburg, it was ruled by a Hungarian king Louis II. Whilst the Habsburgs had an agreement with Louis to take control of Hungary on the event of his death without an heir (they were related through marriage), the dynasty preceeding Louis' death was not Hungarian. After the Ottoman conquest of the majority of Hungary the Habsburgs did take over the remaining Hungarian land so " over the formerly Hapsburg territory of Hungary." is incorrect, it should state that they gained control over an area which would have been Habsburg if the Ottomans had not won.
23. John says that football hadn't been invented in 1550, but there are actually detailed descriptions of the game of football being played in Europe as early as around 1174-1183 by William FitzStephen. There are numerous descriptions of the game football in the centuries that followed and there are even records stating that Henry VIII (Charles V contemporary) had a pair of football boots made for him.
6. (continued) Charlemagne did not exercise control over any of Italy except the small area from about Milan to Tuscany and his (carolingian) empire is not chronologically or geographically linked to the Holy Roman Empire talked about in this video, which extends far further east and included large swathes of Italian territory (at least initially) but does not include the French areas which comprised most of Charlemagne's empire. As I mentioned earlier it is not chronologically continous either, and neither is it politically or legally continous, Charlesmagne's empire used Agnatic Primogeniture whereas the Holy Roman Empire examined here used an elective succession system where all the Emperor's were crowned by the Papacy. Furthermore the culture of Charlesmagne's empire was far more Frankish, whereas the later Holy Roman Empi,vre consisted of a wide variety of cultures that arose from the so-called "Barbarian Kingdoms" and the initial emperors were all Saxon. Certainly you could use the speech to classify Charlemagne's empire as a Roman Empire, though doing purely on the basis of that coronation is still tenous and as I've shown it lacks many of the necessary qualifications. I think you would find it extremely difficult to claim that he is the founder of the Holy Roman Empire talked about in this video; which is rather different geographically, politically, chronologically, culturally and economically. While Charlemagne may certainly have been a Holy Roman Emperor, he in no manner can be seen as the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, which is what this video asserts.
Certainly there are many more points about things that ought to be included, but I tried to focus on things that were directly wrong and should been amended rather than topics that can easily be covered by new videos.
Hmmmm..... Goshdang hats of to you my friend
Aurelius Noble and i thought my comment was long
Aurelius Noble
One more thing: the pope crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor to undermine the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire due to a misogynistic dispute he had with the Empress Irene (one of the most badass people in history imho) who he claimed had no power over him and the the Roman throne was actually vacant
@Aurelius Noble: Gadzooks!!! Where do I have to go, to study at the hem of your robe? I am impressed!
Woah. Loved it, good job!
John, Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for over 20 years now...
It was in 1550
ScienceInc. Malachi
then it's even more incorrect, as between 12th and 20th century there was no Czech "anything", those lands were just a state of the Holy Roman Empire, and they were called Kingdom of Bohemia, with Moravia on the side
+666Tomato666 yeah but czechoslovakia is fun to say. Kingdom of bohemia just makes me want to listen to music.
+666Tomato666 Czech Republic exists. Slovakia exists. Because they both exist simultaneously, and have done in each of their respective historic incarnations, czechoslovakia exists when you are referring to their combined geographic areas.
+Thisold Hatte But why would you? Throughout history the two countries were parts of one state only for like 70 years in the 20th century (And in Great Moravia I suppose but that was the 9th cetury). During the whole 2nd millennium, Slovakia was mostly part of Hungary, so saying Czechoslovakia in relation to the middle ages is just riddiculous. Makes even less sense than someone getting confused and saying it whilst referring to present days.
Europa Universalis anyone?
FUCK FRANCE!
only if it's Europa Universalis 4.
Spain is the emperor!
I unified the Holy Roman Empire as one Nation once. As ethiopian Emperor.
***** BEWARE OF THE BIG BLUE BLOB
BEWARE OF BRANDENBURG/PRUSSIA
Czechoslovakia? The Cold War called, they want their country back
When we think John couldn't mess up any more country names
John : ''Hold my Czechoslovakia''
All I could think is Eu4... And yes I know this is probably one of many comments saying that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!
And thats why the first thing you do when you become the Holy Roman Emperor is disband the Empire.
I was thinking more CK2 since I've been playing that recently. HRE is a stronger and more unified state in that. Voltaire was writing of the HRE when it was decentralized to the point of largely independent vassals in the rise of nation states. Feudalism is a hard thing to describe but the HRE did not make the changes required to become a strong nation. In game terms the other nations were high crown authority, high centralization and primogeniture and the HRE was low, low and elective. There is nothing wrong with elective monarchy but it did cause chaos for the succession which did not allow for the HRE to unify with large vassals bickering over the title of emperor.
Also death to the successors of Charlemagne. DEATH TO THE KARLINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!
ASCG5000 Heh, noob, Emperor can't disband the Empire, only centralize it and turn it into nation state.
Marko Antic If you are allied to all electors then you can.
Do one about the Byzantine empire. The topic is severly underrepresented in many world history narratives, yet immensly important. Should be an interesting subject for history students.
He covered its fall in season 1
By the way, the HRE had been an elected monarchy ever since Charlemagne's dynasty died off. The first non-Karling emperor, Otto, was elected, as were most emperors after him, even those who came from the same dynasty.
Granted, in most cases the elections were a formality, but there were also plenty of times when the German princes and electors simply declared an emperor deposed and elected a counter-candidate. (In the end, whose election was legit tended to be decided on the battlefield)
Don't feed people with facts on youtube. It will just confuse them.
Charles V was awesome and no failure in the shoes he had to fill. Such pompous judgment!
+Aaron Lecciones Actually yes he was a failue but he was doomed to fail, the electors didn't want him and he forced his way unto the imperial throne. From that moment he had no chance of succeeding. The problems didn't start with him it started with earlier generations of habsburgs trying to create a habsburg empire inside the empire.
@@DaDunge The protestants, the French jealous monarchy, and the mad king of England Henry VIII, caused the collapse of this promising empire. Could you imagine uniting all Christian Western kingdoms into one so powerful to kick out the ottomans from Constantinople, and reconquer Palestine and North of Africa (including Egypt)? Thanks to Protestantism and jealous kings, this never happened.
@@carlosmarcial6201 No it happened because the Habsburgs never understood the most basic thing about running an empire, if you want your nobles on board with it you need to show them that the success of the empire is in their best interest. Protestantism didn't cause the political schism in the holy roman empire the political schism caused the reformation.
Actually, the Spanish Empire got a little bigger after they dumped the Holy Roman Empire. They eventually took Portugal and all their territories as well as the Netherlands and their territories amounting to more land than the Holy Roman Empire.
(And Spain actually never let go of the HRE, Charles handed it off to his brother, another Spaniard. Curious)
Littlefinger is playing Monopoly
6:59 "I'm buying it !"
+scarfacemperor You. Are. Everywhere.
In vids of Civ, Extra History, EU, and now Crash Course too!?
Stop chasing me, you pervert!
+scarfacemperor ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+scarfacemperor ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You know nothing Scarfacemperor!
kummerk I know how to cook meat pies
I want to play total war medieval 2 now
Try Europa Universalizes IV
ASCG5000 Crusader kings 2 might be better because it has actual people in it. Mind you EU is easier, so you might be right.
mafiacat88 PersonallyI prefer EU4 because I enjoy more empire building then internal politics. But CK2 is also a great game.
ASCG5000 Oh yeah, I much prefer EU as well. I was just saying that if you wanted a good Historical Europe game, CK is better, as it is more in depth.
mafiacat88 How is CK2 more difficult than EU4? Ever try an ironman Ryukyu world conquest? In CK2 I went from single county to ruling half of Europe in 4 generations. I prefer EU4 but I do wish that the CK2 raiding mechanic was somehow in EU4 (though probably wouldn't make much sense)
2:24 you said that the HRE was a "failed state" yet it existed for a thousand years and was the dominant force in Europe for some time... Sounds more successful than a lot of countries
Ok, I think I get this. Charlemagne got this HRE thing going by understanding that it had to be sold to the everyday man. Much of what I've learned about life in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, the experience day-to-day was in the very shadow of a former power, one that lasted a length of time that is difficult to imagine. People lived their lives often juxtaposition to the ruins of greatness to this very day. The grew up with stories describing how the quality of life was better under the Romans.Or at least there was some kind of order and rule. Clovis united the Francs, whom were all kneeling before a singular and absolute power, and the Russians were constantly trying to legitimize Tsars, a title invoking a certain Roman emperor. So Voltaire makes a fun point, but the Holy Roman Empire, in its inception, was holy because it was bound by a common faith, Roman because it imbued the idea of absolute authority that always seems to get things done, also, if I understand correctly, included the Italian Peninsula for some time early on(?), and finally was also imperial, because only in an Empire can one man screw things up so royally....?
enjoyed your comment
Rome inspired all the kingdoms, nations and empires that came after her. Even the ottomans and the arabs. Today the USA too. Without rome civilization wouldn't exist.
SuperJuvexxx
Except for like, all of the civilizations that came before Rome. Lmao
Well, there are theories that the pope might have given him the title against his will. I mean, taking the title didn't give him any more power, nor enable him to take any land. Instead, it technically made him the popes vassal.
The pope gave him the honorific by surprise, which would have looked very very bad for Charlie if he turned down what was supposedly the legacy of Rome. However, this therefore positioned the pope as someone who actually HAD the power to do that, which meant that they had authority greater than Charlemagne. (It was also awkward since the legitimate eastern part of the Roman empire was still alive and very strong at the time. They didn't take kindly to the fact that this guy with a ceremonial title just tried to give away their empire)
Cue hundreds of years of the popes meddling in European politics.
Of course that's one view, historians argue on if it's true or not.
Error 3, Mr. Green: The HRE never ever had anything in Western Ukraine. Austria-Hungary did (only quite late, after the partition of Poland) but not the Empire, whose borders were quite specific: Germany (incl. Bohemia but not Slovakia, and also several other lands like Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and parts of France), Italy (not including the South) and Burgundy (SE France, parts of Switzerland). It did expand eastward into Poland and also retreated in Italy but in no case reached Ukraine even remotely.
Love the series, but I can't remember if there was an episode on how exactly feudalism works... I think that actually explaining how it works would make the understanding of medieval Europe much easier. If there is an episode about that, I apologise, I'll have to go through the playlist!
Love your videos dude ! Ties the pieces together and gives me an alternative to reading my textbooks! Thanks John Green
Dear people of the USA, please, stop saying Czechoslovakia. We split up in 1993 for God's sake. Update your maps and history books once in a while. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist the same way Soviet Union and Yugoslavia don't.
Veronika Surovcová Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union don't exist anymore? I need to relearn my history then....
ThePooper3000 I don't know if you're actually kidding or not. In case you're serious, no, they really don't. :/ Both were devided into independent states.
Veronika Surovcová I was yust yoking...
I'm American, hopefully your joking.
+Sean Youn There are way more "migrants" in the U.S. than there will ever be in Europe.
There's currently a spanish ongoing tv series called Charles the emperor king which is more or less accurate. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to dig in the subject (that is if you know spanish and like detailed history)
Thank you for that episode. In France, we study François 1er, and then we focus on internal politics under Henry IV. Charles V, or Charles Quint as we generally call him, is always a shadowy monarch, influential by his name, yet we never see his achievements. The lucky ones who start learning Spanish, take on the following of the story with Felipe II, son of Charles, and king of Spain. So as it is, this course just filled a whole in my head where it is possible to connect the dots. History really is a mutli-sided mirror !
I like how he just skips over the fact that Charles was first and foremost, King of Castile(Spain). Holy Roman Emperor was just one of his many additional titles, not his main one. He's not a Habsburg. He's a Spanish Habsurg which were separate from the Austrian line, not to mention far more powerful due to the global hegemony of the Spanish Army.
How's Charles of Spain not Spanish? This guy was half Spanish. He had more Spanish ancestry than Queen Victoria(of Hanover) had English. He inherited the title of King of Castile through his Spanish ancestry. The title of Holy Roman Emperor, on the other hand, was simply something he bought.
And the part where he generalized Spaniards as cruel to Indians is another double standard considering the fact that the British policy towards American Indians was outright extermination and Queen Isabella before Charles tried to improve the treatment of natives.
THANKS man, just thank you for saying the truth!
It has become acceptable in the English-speaking world to ignore, downplay, or completely omit Spanish history. I have a bone to pick with my fellow historians.
John NoNameGibbon Definitely! It's clear that the Black Legend is based in real abuses, but they were magnified and difused by English, French and Dutch (natural enemies of Spain those times). It is time to say all the truth, the good things as well as the bad ones. Good luck, there is a lot of work left.
Luis Irastorza Valera I don't romanticize Spanish history, I just hate when people exaggerate or omit it.
John NoNameGibbon Neither do I, but I hate propaganda against it.
The Holy Roman Empire was basically "The Symbolic Germanic Republic"
I like how you tell the stories in a practical way and make it fun. It's also historically accurate. I remember learning about the Hapsburgs all through my Danube river cruise. Also I remember thinking "weren't they the ones who sacked Rome on the Tudors"? I remember our tour guide showing a statue and saying how they were inbred. I seen some of the same faces on this video.
"brasil is always the excepcion in america" yeah right..... tell that joke to phllip II
>Spain takes control of brazil
>Brazil is invaded right after that
Good job Spain
@@miguelpadeiro762 ...and what about Germany or France? How many territories invades in America? French people in Haiti is a very funny story. It ends pretty well. :P.
Odd TH-cam recommended this video to me when I'm playing Castile in EUIV right now. Eerie
Did you get "Spain is the Emperor" achievement?
Im playing Austria :p
lmao same
I passed the AP test because of you !!!! Thank u so much
Brilliant video, these really help me studying A-level History; but everyone just note that the Diet of Worms was actually in 1521 rather than 1523 which is stated in the video. Keep up the good work CrashCourse!
Love the series as always, John and Team!
However, I found the theme of trying to determine whether Charles I was a good ruler not very useful. Perhaps you could do a Big History episode on the concept of good leadership. What Charles I saw as "good" motivated his complicated choices, but it certainly isn't what we see as "good" today, or even compared to another culture of his own time. I can imagine that episode's discussion involving Just War and other fun debates :D
Thanks for bringing humor to the equation every time, helps the history go down, and gives some modern perspective. Thanks!!
Funny thing about what he said about the empires moto '' Plus Ultra'', apart from being everything that he said it was also a PUN.
There was a Latin proverb that referred to the Atlantic coast of europe ''Non Plus Ultra'' that means nothing beyond, they believed that that was the last land before the outer sea and the fall from the flat earth. So when Colombus discovered America and Spain was unified the motto became Plus Ultra as a way of saying basically: ''So there actually is something beyond, but we were the only ones brave enough to find it and now we are the only ones getting rich, suck it!!!!'' to the rest of Europe.
You've got to love Spanish rulers' humour.
That is one awesome piece of trivia :)
People knew the world was spherical in shape from the ancient Greeks. It was also the Vikings that 'discovered' (first Europeans) the Americas.
Patricia a Except the Portuguese were still the ones dominating the spice trade, and the Spanish never had the idea to go west (that would be Columbus). Also, it was said there was nothing south of Cabo Bojador in Morocco, but that did not stop Gil Eanes from going beyond it. So please don't say the Spanish were the only ones brave enough to "go beyond".
I'm Brazilian and i loved Braziltage, awesome episode, could you make one about italian unification? thank you :)
Thanks!
“Oh look it’s all of my past relationships.... an open letter to failure.”
God that made me laugh so much.
Who doesn't view Charles V as a giant of world history?
Gotta love the creeping finger on the bookcase before the open letter.
And I have to ask, how was he a failure, exactly? His son, Philip, commanded an even larger empire than his own. Was Queen Victoria a failure?
I guess he was only a failure if you judge him on what he aspired to be, the Ruler of Earth, instead of what he was. But that's _so_ stupid, Neal (the writer). All kings and Queens are failures by that strange standard.
NOT NEAL, STAN!!!!
But his orders were frequently ignored. His army mutinied and sacked Rome. He failed to supress the reformation when he thought he had succeeded.
If You áre talking about Charles V.
Well he failed to stop the Reformation.
Failed to unite Western Europe and central europe.
Failed to stop the enslavement and the brutality done to the natives
Failed to balance economics and left the Spanish empire in debt
John NoNameGibbon bro why did you spam the hell out of this video? You seem UPSET
John NoNameGibbon bro you got everything taken way too seriously
Brazil is the Mongolia of the Americas.
Always the exception
this is your best episode in a while
"Todo buén Español debería mear mirando hacia inglaterra"..frase de don Blas de Lezo (batalla de Cartagena de indias;inglaterra 30.000 soldados ingleses y 200 barcos de guerra, España ; 4 barcos y 3.000 soldados Españoles= derrota inglesa..11.000 muertos ingleses y la flota inglesa destruida; España;1000muertos . Un Respeto a la Historia.Un respeto a España.
_Se rie en Sitio de Gibraltar_
no vas a comprar seguir mucho respeto asi
@@2x2leax *Saqueo de Londres*
10.29: Hungary wasn't a formerly Habsburg territory. Charles inherited Hungary after the last Hungarian king of Hungary fell in the battle of Mohacs 1526, because the latter was married to Charles' sister Mary. But henceforth the Habsburg had a legal claim to Hungary.
Thank you. You are the only one who told me why Charles attacked Rome.
"I speak French to men, Italian to women, Spanish to God, and German to my horse"
Total War anyone?
Now for a lesson, you may have heard these words before, but I'll teach you what they really mean... GO BEYOND, PLUS... ULTRAAAAAAA!
After such a long search, I have finally found the comment I was looking for.
@@zhin13 hahahaha same, PLUS ULTRA!!!
I have always wondered where the quote mentioned that the Holy Roman Empire "was not holy, nor Roman, or an empire" came from. But, when I was in Modern World History class from high school, my teacher, who is now retired, had said to me and the students that "there is no such thing" as the Holy Roman Empire, never was.
lol This was the Spanish Empire, not the "Hapsburg Empire".
That's like calling Victorian Britain the "Hanover Empire".
Yeah both correct
It's a historical term used to denote the territories ruled by the Habsburg family during this era, especially relevant during Charles V's reign seeing as how he was ruling over the territorial Holy Roman Empire and the colonial Spanish Empire. These territories were inextricably linked 2 Habsburg dynasty, where as what Royal House sat on the British throne by the 19th century did not really matter. The terminology is a bit arbitrary but helps historians to clarify and categorize these times and places in history.
@@DisorderlyFashion "colonial Spanish Empire". Dude: Spain Empire wasn't England. Spain never established colonies in America. Spain established VICEKINGDOMS in America. They were autonomous, with laws and with their own viceking. These vicekingdoms were very prosperous during 400 years.
_This guy_ is where All Might's catchphrase comes from?!
Unexpecdedly this is my favorite CC episode and more relevant than it seems
Que en gloria eterna esté. ¡Gloria para el Emperador Carlos V!
Manuel Cordero Iniesta Carlos I solo nos metió en fregados europeos y se gasto todo el dinero de América en matar protestantes :(
Juan Ramos ¡Pero que bien los mataba! Daba alegría verlo.
Manuel Cordero Iniesta XDDD
Si tan sólo hubiesen usado ese dinero para el libre comercio, hoy españa sería el doble de grande que estados unidos
Qué hizo por ti, Cordero (nunca un apellido fue mejor elegido), qué hizo por la gente? Repartió tierras a los pobres, evitó que los ricos nos robaran? No, se limitó a destruir la constitución castellana, creando las bases de los problemas actuales de España, seguir saqueando América, las bases de los problemas actuales de América Latina, y producir la mayor masácre bélica en la historia de la humanidad antes de las guerras mundiales por culpa de una discusión filósofico-teológica con un tal Lutero (con el que estaba de acuerdo en masacrar y oprimir a los pobres sin embargo).
Love this series and thank you fellow Hoosier!
Há, if Brazil is always one exception, I guess we deserve one crash history video :P
Yes indeed, I would like to see another great emperor's story, starting with Pedro II El Magnanimo.
In this instance Brazil is the exception because of a little thing called the treaty of Tordesilhas.=P
There's no "El" in portuguese, it would be "o", so the correct is: Pedro II, O Magnâmino
no, the mongols are the execption *plays mongol part that is seen in the mongol episode)
I guess you guys are the exception when it becomes to being a crash court history video.
"brasil is always the excepcion in america" , The new Mongolians have been confirmed
Please, we are drunk, crazy, huge, diverse and beautiful. We are clearly the new russians.
Your final message was just great! Thank you.
Error 4, Mr. Green: Charlemagne did not name his Empire that way. He was crowned Roman Emperor, full stop. It was only the Ottos of the 10th century who created the HRE by merging Germany (their home country, earlier East Francia), Brugundy and Italy. Under them it was a true empire, up to the point that they would have defeated the Mongols (!!!) if Gengis Khan had not died and their conquest of Europe would have continued, but gradually imperial power disintegrated into feudal contract madness.
It wasn't named that way until the 13th century though.
There seems to be some argument on that matter: the word "sacrum" (holy) being used more or less irregularly in earlier times, even before Otto I.
Sure? I thought the first mention of "sacrum" in combination with the empire was in the 12th century under the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, becoming the formal title some hundred years after that.
Well, I just checked the Wikipedia article and seems indeed a bit confuse (different documents would use different wordings, etc.) I'm no erudite so I can't say much more on this exact detail.
You say that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't much of an empire because it was too diverse and spread out. However, isn't every Empire diverse and spread out?
Welcome to double standards.
And it wasn't really the "Holy Roman Empire" it was just a region. And Spain owned it. It was part of the Spanish Empire. Not the "Hapsburg Empire". That's stupid.
Wasn't that the cause why the regions of the Holy Roman Empire politically fragmented?
If one was logically consistent then they would probably consider the Mayan civilization to be an Empire. Both "empires" were not remotely centralized and were comprised of several practically sovereign constituents.
It was no Empire, because english people do Everything wrong in German it is called Heiliges Römisches REICH deutscher Nation. So it was an Reich
John NoNameGibbon and what are you talking about a region that's the stupid thing I have ever heared. Both were different COUNTRIES with the same Emporer and he was German cause Burgundy is a Germanic state and first the Burgunds lived in the middle of modern day Germany. SO LEARN HISTORY
learned alot. I took AP Euro History back in high school and had a blast - definitely the most interesting of all continents.
czechoslovakia ceased to exist 21 years ago but it seems no single american ever got the memo. yet you can see the two separate countries on the map
Maybe it's like how some people still refuse to call Constantinople Istanbul
It's not a big deal
it kind of is a big deal to the millions of people who live there
Angela Black I kind of heard people of Czech Rep and Slovakia didn't want to split from each other.
the slovaks wished to separate and now a lot of them are moving to the czech republic for education and work. if the country had wanted to stay united, it could have done just that, no one was forcing them
The Holy Roman Empire, in every phase of it's existence, was as much an empire as the European Union is a union.
Meaning: Not.
+Sam Urai Actually, something this video did not mention is that while Charles' army sacked Rome, nuns were raped and sold into slavery - Spanish and German mercenaries butchered the Swiss Guard in a bid to murder the Pope himself. It is speculated (Though we couldn't possibly know) that the shame of what happened in Rome motivated Charles to abdicate.
On top of that, Charles' hardline stance against Protestantism was drilled into his sons and by extension the Habsburg Dynasty at large. This legacy of protestant persecution is what caused the Thirty Years War - the third most devastating war in history. Of course, you could also just use history you don't understand as a pretext for casual racism.
you seem like a...hmmm
Rens de Koning the EU wants to be the Holy Roman Empire
Slubbergully you ignore the fact that everything you mentioned revolved around the protestant reformation. or are you seriously implying the CATHOLIC hre and emperor are responsible for mercenaries raping CATHOLIC nuns and wanted to kill the POPE? -_-
The Italian Wars did not revolve around Protestantism. It was an extension of the rivalry between the de Valois dynasty and the von Habsburg dynasty. Both of which were filled with Catholics; both of which were fighting in Italy full of Catholics.
Where are you getting the "fact" that anything the Habsburgs did in Italy had anything to do with the Protestants? Why are you suggesting that the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope got along in this time period? They were quite literally at war with one another due to the League of Cognac.
John Green, you are a gift to the world.
I'm not even mad at Charles V, I am rather impressed he managed to fold such a large and robust state, lol
He actually just inherited it. And it was not a state.
It wasn't a state proper but certainly had many properties of a state so using the moniker isn't incorrect. as for him inheriting it, that has nothing to do with my comment. cheers
I was just wondering, what was making you so impressed. (your word not mine)
I was impressed by his ability to be so ineffectual. Also why are you parroting my word back to me as if I was unaware of what i said. You needed clarification, not me
Ok misunderstanding than. Because in my dictionary "to fold" is not a synonym for inefectuality.
Like for Brazil montage
There are so many crash course videos i don't know where to begin.
One thing I have noticed in the world is what I call "Linear History". Linear history is curtain parts of history that is going to happen in every region of the world. Take nationalism, human rights and revolutions. Hundreds of years ago human rights activist 1st appeared, 100 years later there was revolutions, then nationalism. Now in the Middle East and Central Asia we see human rights activist like Al-Hathlool and Malala speaking out for basic human rights(Those are the only two I could think of off the top of my head). There has also been revolutions, the Arab Spring. This has also worked the other way having the Golden Age of the Arab World happen before the Rennisannce. Now this is just a very basic theory that I myself have come up with, I have no history major or anything so I am not the most reliable source of information. Feel free to criticizes or improve as you see fit. Also I'm not a great speller so there is probably spelling errors.
i like the idea
You should read Hegel. Trust me.
I'd agree with the "spread like a virus" point as a factual statement, and with the not-hegelian (cuz its metaphysical) but maybe sort of technological interpretation (good ideas spreading like technology). However one should be aware that this can also not happen, for a long, long time, or "ever" (so far) for many many places and things (ideas). Take the idea of God, for example, that sure has been thought of as a candidate for a superior understanding of reality, but sure as hell didnt appear everywhere, and not in the same form where it did. Now some would claim atheism might be one of those ideas that will "definitely" spread like wildfire, but many smart new-age and modern spiritual people would reject that.
I've came up with a similar conclusion.
that's called zeitgeist and probably other names as well. ""what I call "Linear History"" LOL fuck off.
Look! at 6:54! It's Grutte Pier! friesian folk hero extraordinair!
Who?
+Yousef Atta A famous Frisian pirate.
buter, brea en griene tsiis...
the brazil montage was hilarious!
i wish you where my history teacher
were*
thanks for correcting me in a nice way
+DucKy be his english teacher 😽
oh wait i spelled were wrong
@@dmangoman1 lol
*faint sobs heard from the hetalian corner*
I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that
Hetalian?
+Naira Nadzira does the mere mentioning of HRE really give hetalians heart crushing pain? 0_o
+Abraxas Gremory
Some people.
Luckily himapapa promised a happy ending-
+Naira Nadzira Doitsu
When he played the Brazilian exception I just started dancing uncontrollably
sad he didn't include one of the biggest helpers in the Vienna siege, which was the Polish Commonwealth....and i hope he includes the Commonwealth in it
Dark999Death Errr no. Poland is a country that had the misfortune to be placed between Russia and Germany. It wasn't the English anyway, more like the British.
Dark999Death Poland was around long before any British influence was felt in the region
Dark999Death Hell poland was around since before england was taken by the normans so in a way poland is older than england as we know it
Wasn't that the later siege of Vienna, you know, the really famous one?
***** the idea of a unified germany came from Arminius after he beat the romans in 9AD and because of that, they killed him. that is now 2005 years ago. how old is the idea of poland if it's so much older?
Hang on a second. What is today Czechoslovakia can't believe I just noticed that.
unbelievable, its Slovakia and Czech Republic
Don't worry, I'm from Europe and just 2 days ago Yugoslavia wasn't around anymore.(Yes, I did know about Bosnia and such)
wow.
Cortez's response is comedy gold lol
Technically the Holy Roman Empire didn't exist until Otto in 962. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor, not specifically Holy Roman Emperor. The latter title came out of the ruins of Charlemagne's empire.
+TheCommunistColin Pretty sure he was crowned roman emperor, the holy part didn't really come until the HRE broke ties with the papacy. Otto very much usurped the crown of Charlamagne, though the person who held it before him didn't really rule over anything.
+TheCommunistColin Both were crowned "Emperor of the Romans", the "Holy" wasn't part of it.
The Imperial title wasn't connected with a certain territory for centuries to come. It was just a title that indicated that he who held it was chosen by god to rule over all of Western Christendom.
Technically, an English or Swedish monarch could have been "Emperor of the Romans" as well.
MacX1985 There's was rumour that Gustavus Adolphus and cardinal Richelieu had a pact that would make the former emperor and the latter pope.
Fredrik Dunge Yeah, there have been foreign contenders to the thrown every now and then. Charles V barely defeated the king of France over it, and he himself was also a foreigner who barely spoke German. As long as you had the means to bribe the electoral princes you could aspire to be crowned.
But that's at a time when there was already no other way to be crowned emperor without being crowned king of Germany beforehand.
What I was talking about was the 9th and 10th century when the imperial title was still being claimed by nobility from different different parts of Europe, like the couple of Italian emperors.
Fredrik Dunge sad, that Gustav didn't make it at Lutzen, who would Richelieu crown a pretender with?
soooo... why did you miss Queen Victoria, King George V and Edward VIII out of your list of monarchs ruling massive territory?
England and scotland not massive amounts of territory their colonys largely failed as well as having colonys governed by themselves largely so... ya
Sean Kane
so the entire British Empire, that spanned the globe, that the sun still hasn't set on (seriously, look it up), the largest in history, dwarfing even the conquests of the Great Khan, wasn't all that big?
Field Marshal Fry No because most of there vast empire was so autonomous it was barely apart of it
Sean Kane
they were controlled by British bureaucrats in constant contact with London, while the day to day running was autonomous, their orders came from Britain, Parliament was still in control
Like how nowadays the queen could overthrow parliament if they did anything like say tax them a decent amount they could and most likely would overthrow their British ruler (sun never sets is pretty cool though)
I really like how revolutionary interesting this way of teaching and learning is, especially combined with the aspects of youtube as a medium. So everyone that contributes to this show is fantastic!
But before. you guys used to mention everyone in the outro, why did you stop doing that? That was so charming and it showed that you value the participatory aspect of making a show, as well as making anything, such as history for example! So bring back the naming-every-single-person-thing, that was a really nice display of idealism!
Spanish Empire, the empire of the sun never sets. All hail Spain!
Charles V was not French, hé was born in Gent, today Belgium. In 1500 however it was: 1. Part of the Holy Roman Empire 2. Part of the Netherlands 3. Under Burgundy rule. Never under French rule or part of the French Empire
@@richardroggeveen961 Yeah, but Burgundy family were subordinates of the French kingdom - technically. I guess Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Spain should have inheritted the crown to Mary of Portugal - their daughter... So Portugal and Spain would be one today. HRE was a completely mess.
HBO or Netflix should do a series about this
Luis Sierra they will only tell lies about Spanish history while they keep sucking american and British cocks.
@@mikel6059 lies about spanish history britain never controlled europe the most powerful continent ever but guess what spain did control europe the most powerful continent ever
that quick Brazil montage was pretty great
How wasn't the HRE an empire? An Empire is defined as: "an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state." This is exactly what the HRE was! Today, the HRE would be made up of Germany, Austria, Czech, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and eastern France and this "extensive group of states or countries" would be "ruled over by a single monarch", much like it was under Charles V...
+Luke of Lancs I guess he was referring to the inefficiency of feudal rulership in the middle ages and the sectionalism of the Early Modern era. An empire is mostly thought to be governed directly by a monarch having a standing army, a capital, direct taxation and legislature.
Lujoja it wasnt an empire because every single country maintained full autonamy, aside from VERY small tax subsidies and aiding in foreign wars. hell, the holy roman states fought more wars amobgst themselves than the HRE did with foreign countries
In your definition, the european union is also an empire
While the Holy Roman Empire itself was ruled over by the Emperor, each and every state within it not only had its own laws and codes and from the Reformation onwards even their own religions at times, even to the point where they had their own Dukes and Kings in charge of those nations. The Holy Roman Empire fit a very loose definition of an Empire, and was more like a confederation that was barely bound together at all at times.
Lujoja If you're really trying to bind the HRE to that definition, which ,in the most technical terms, it is, then the EU fits said definition better.
Off course Charles kicked Francis ass again and again. When u have "los tercios" on ur side, wich at the time was the best infantry unit, it's easier.
This is true, tercios were indeed the heads of the ass-kicking department infantrywise in that period.
A rather nice episode !
I study a bit of HRE history, mainly the czech, and hungarian parts, and having the other side of the coin, especialy under Charles V is interesting.
And also, bravo for the show ; it is at the same time simple enough to understand if you didn't studied the subject before, and plenty of facts, quote or quick analysis that almost always make you learn something, or requestion yourself on a subject you thought you knew ! Thanks !
"behind only genghis khan and joseph stalin..." yeah and the British empire
Dadutta
That's important to you, right?
Karl Karlos not on a personal level, but it is factual. It is very odd to omit this.
Ah come one. You selected a single sentence out of a video about Charles V just because he didn't mention the stupid british empire... You know what, never mind.
Karl Karlos if I should never mind your comment, you didn't even need to post your comment. By the way I am not anglophile or anglo-supremacist in any way, just pointing out what seemed to me a strange omission.
DramaQueen.
It can be properly called the Holy Roman Empire: Holy for it defended the pope, Roman for it ruled the Italian pennesula, Empire for it ruled over many Kingdoms, Duchies, Counties, Baronies, and multiple culture groups. It was Das Heilige Römische Reich.
karl seider Truth.
But Holy because the Emperor was crowned by the Pope. Though technically to remain Holy it would need each Emperor to submit to the Pope and to be crowned by him.
To true :)
I wouldn't call it a empire
More like a really broken UN or NATO. I mean just play in a part of the HRE in EU4 its a total cluster fuck.
google search: what's the difference between an empire and a kingdom
Empire: a group of countries that are controlled by one ruler / government. King: the (male) ruler of an independent state / country that has a royal family. Kingdom: a country ruled by a king (or queen). The difference seems to be;Apr 2, 2012
Also see: www.diffen.com/difference/Emperor_vs_King
the HRE was an empire, there are some exeptions, but there all ways will be.
I guess by definition it is kinda of is a empire so I'll give you that. But it was the worst empire by most standards. The members of the HRE were constantly fighting with each other, sometimes literally going to war with one another. The only time they got along was when a outside threat appeared like the French or ottomans. That and as john green stated in the video the emperor couldn't tax his subjects. The reason I compared it to a broken UN or NATO is that it acts more like them instead of a proper empires of history. As for the other to parts of the name its was holy because of the strong ties to the catholic church and Christianity in general and I'm pretty sure we can both agree on it was NOT roman at all. To me it will not be a serious empire, maybe that is because nearly every other empire in history was much better at being empires than it. Thats why I use EU4 as a example of what it was like inside. That's my opinion on the HRE in general.
Jumping from one season to the other and I miss comb-less John 💙
IT'S CALLED FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!
Why would he call it football? John is American, he calls it soccer.
football has been a sport longer then USA has been a country and the american football should not be called football it's illogical
mrsirwester wester almost everything on earth is older than the usa. but as an American, we don't give a fuck. we say whatever the fuck we want, so go play soccer
and i say fuck America and you could go play your hand-runningball
Anthony Mogavero Why? Because they play 90 minutes with the bal on the foot.
Plus Ultra IS the Spanish motto.