You could make a video about who has the best claim to become king of Poland. It would definitely get the views but it could be a nightmare to research because: 1. For most of Polish history Polish throne was elective even though almost always the most senior male heir was elected to the throne. 2. If male line dies out then a woman can be elected a King of Poland (not queen) and then a husband for her would be elected to start a new dynasty. 3. Polish king could be pass though a woman line, but usually which through which woman it was decided during when the king lived. And it was usually through sister of last reigning Polish monarch, not through daughter. 4. As long there is valid marriage then child is able to inherit - morganatic marriages do NOT exclude from inheritance. The most obvious choices would be: - Daniel von Sachsen (due to Duchy of Warsaw) - Paul François Roman Sanguszko (due to being most senior descendant oAlexis Romanofff Jogaila brothers, if I am not mistaken) - Alexis Romanoff (due Russians emperors using tittle King of Poland, if I am not mistaken he is the most senior male descendant) - etc etc
hi i really appreciate your amazing work. I dont intend to buy the poster but really want to have a pdf version of this chart. How can i get one? thanks in advance!
"...a German Emperor and an Austrian Emperor, a situation that would continue up until the end of World War II." That should be "...until the end of World War I." Both the German and Austrian Empires were abolished at the end of the First World War.
The German Empire (as in, the German Reich) continued to exist legally and in name until 1945, but yes, the office of the Emperor was of course abolished in 1918.
@@gabriel.knight Hitler' s Nazi regime(1933-45) coined itself, ' the 3rd Reich' in allusion to the previous 2,namely the 2nd one which was the Hohenzollern dynastic,Prussian led version (1871-1918) and the 1st one which was the Holy Roman Empire(800/962-1806); however the last proper German Empire was officially and legally abolished in 1918 to be replaced by the Weimar Republic down to 1933.
@@MrSinclairn No, the Weimar Republic's name was always "German Reich." You can check the Weimar Constitution of 1919 to find it is the "Constitution of the German Reich" and this is also what contemporary politicians, including Social Democrats, publicly called the state. "Weimar Republic" is a historiographic term to post-mortem describe the republican period between 1918 and 1933.
19:18 A note: Though in english the emperors of the HRE are indeed called emperors, while the German Empire's heads of state are referred to as "Kaiser", it is important to note that the German word for the Holy Roman Emperor as well as the Austrian Empire's monarch had always been "Kaiser".
@@Carpediem357 it indeed is rather closer. The C in classical latin is always a "K" sound and ae were not an ä or æ sound, but a diphthong of ae/ai like in "hi" (the greeting).
@@UsefulCharts Interestingly enough though we have the word "Imperator" in german, taken straight from latin, the word "Kaiser" is used for any emperor, be it Roman Emperor, the Japanese Tennou or the "emperor of india" title the british used.
The English title of "Emperor" comes from the Old French "Empereor or Empereür", which in turn comes from the Latin "Imperator." This was the title used by various historical monarches. But for those who believed themselves the direct successors of Rome and the heirs of Caesar & Augustus: The HRE on and off combined Kaiser with Imperator and sometimes Augustus, before it became just Kaiser in Germany and Austria; Czar in Russian; Kayser-i Rûm in Ottoman Turkish; And the Byzantine emperors used Caesar or Kaisar for their heirs/co-emperors before introducing Sebastokrator (Augustus Imperator/Ruler). This is was a confusing mess to research, so feel free to correct me!
While the word "Kaiser" comes from the ancient name/title Caesar, it wasn't newly invented in 1871. It's just the german word for (every) Emperor. In German we use the term "Kaiser von Österreich" (of Austria), "Kaiser von China", Kaiser Napoleon, etc.
We still also call the Japanese emperor "Kaiser", like the current "Kaiser Naruhito". And if one watches the German dubbed version of the original Star Wars movie, at the meeting of the generals and officers where Vader chokes that one guy, they also refer to the emperor as "Kaiser" (in the later movies they started dubbing it as "Imperator") 😀
Charles the V inherited not only the biggest European empire, but at this stage, it was the first global empire where "the sun would never set," including America and part of Asia. Not only that, but for a brief period, he married his son Philip with the queen of England, which only left France outside of the Habsburgh reign.
That claim that Philip II would have had if he had inherited the HRE or a successful armada is quite extraordinary- basically the whole of Western Europe or the ancient Western Roman Empire's land.
Fun fact fredrick 2 actually offered king haakon 4 of norway the holy roman throne but he denied it because he wanted to protect finnmark from the mongols
6:31 As for the kingdom of Sicily, the shield “argent, an eagle displayed sable” was used by the Hohenstaufens under king Manfred. The arms of the house of Hauteville were “azure, a bend chequy of gules and argent”.
Belgium was under the names Spanish Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands up to 1792 part of HRE. From 1815 to 1832 dutch King ruled current Netherlands and Belgium under the same crown, also Luxemburg as Greatduke of Luxemburg, a socalled ,Personal Union'.
It seems that two German kings are missing from the family tree: William II (House of Holland): 1247-1256 (in opposition to Conrad IV until 1254) Richard (House of Plantagenet): 1257-1272 (son of King John of England) King Alfonso X of Castile also claimed the German crown from 1257 to 1275
One mistake: both Germany and Austria ceased to be monarchies at the end of World War I, not World War II. Another minor mistakes: The title Kaiser was always used in the HRE, it is not a throwback to Roman times introduced in 1871. The word is very old. It existed as keisar in Old High German and as kayser in Middle High German. A third mistake: Maximilian I was the first emperor not crowned by the pope. He introduced the title "Erwählter Römischer Kaiser" (= Elected Roman Emperor) or "divina favente clementia electus Romanorum Imperator, semper Augustus" (the full official title), which replaced the older title "Kaiser der Römer" (= Emperor of the Romans) or Romanorum Imperator. He also changed the title for the German king from Rex Romanorum (= König der Römer = King of the Romans) to Germaniae Rex (= König in Germanien = King in Germany).
@@Meton2526 I know, but it is important know that the word (and thus the title) Kaiser is not an invention of the 19th century (as suggested in the video) but is very old. It might even be one of the oldest loanwords in the German language. It may have entered the German language during the first century CE.
@@barbarossarotbart Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to correct you at all, just add context that the same word almost certainly goes back to the Roman Empire, just changing in spelling between two different languages, but the pronunciation and relative meaning being the same.
1:00 Charlemagne, 👑 2:18 Charles The Fat, Emperor. 3:20 Conrad I then Henry the Fowler. 3:45 Otto I, The Great. 936 - Otto, King of East Frankia 961 - Otto, Holy Roman Emperor 4:32 Otto II 973-983 reign Otto III 983-1002 reign 5:04 Conrad II 1024-1039 reign. Conrad II conquered Burgundy. Making the Holy Roman Empire: Germany + Italy + Burgundy 5:22 A bunch of Counts and Emperors later 6:11 A Conflict between the House of Welf and the House of Hohenstaufen 6:43 Frederick Barbarossa, the crusader Emperor. 1152-1190 7:41 Philip of Swabia is the only Holy Roman Emperor to be Assassinated. 9:00 The Great Interregnum No Holy Roman Emperor would be in power from 1250-1312 9:15 Count Kings, 4 Houses. • Hapsburgs • Nassau • Luxembourg • Wittelsbach 11:17 Frederick III 1440-1493 reign 11:48 Charles V • Holy Roman Emperor • Ruler of Spain 🇪🇸 • Ruler of the Dutch Low-country • Ruler of parts of Italy & Sardinia Preparing for Charles V death, he have his brother, Ferdinand I, take control of Holy Rome Empire and his son, Phillip II, control of Spain Austrian 🇦🇹Hapsburgs Spanish 🇪🇸Hapsburgs 13:34 The 30 Years War 1618-1648 14:18 Leopold I 15:13 Joseph I, then Charles VI. No children The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748 Britain and Austria vs France and Prussia 16:14 Seven Years War 1756-1763 Britain and Prussia vs France and Austria 17:24 Francis II is the final Holy Roman Emperor, since Napoleon de facto ends The Holy Roman Empire with his conquest of Europe. 17:47 HRE --> Empire of Austria 18:37 Austro-Prussian War of 1866 19:23 Otto Von Bismarck 1860s 2 Emperors exist German Emperor and Austrian Emperor
Charlemagne was truly the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire as the Franks were also German. I can understand saying that the Holy Roman Emperor began with the elected emperors.
You are making your own history now. Charlemagne never was a Holy Roman Emperor, he was Emperor of the Romans. The first HREmperor was Otto. The Franks weren't Germans, they were Franks, a GERMANIC tribe. Germanic ≠ German.
Might just be me, but looking at maps, it seemed Charles V ruled more land than Charlemagne... Because Spain and France are around the same size, and Charles had control or at least influence of almost all of Italy by the time his reign ended, and the Holy Roman Empire stretched further east than Charlemagne's Empire did, so I'd say Charles V's Empire was even bigger
And that's only in Europe. Charles abdicated in 1556, at which point Spain had conquered huge areas in the Americas, making this not even a contest any more.
I agree, but you have to remember that he didn't really control the HRE, only the Low Countries and Austria. The states of the HRE were very autonomous and made their own decisions. Especially with the rise of Protestantism during his reign leading to further divide in the empire. But with Spain, Sardinia and Sicily and Naples he still controlled huge kingdoms, and the Low Countries and Spanish Colonies were making him extremely rich.
@@DutchSimmer1 The Low Countries were just as much a part of the HRE as the rest of them, he just spent most of his time there, as he was also raised there.
You forgot William II of Holland among the Count-Kings of the Great Interregnum. He was elected anti-king of Germany in 1248 and was crowned in Aachen in the same year after laying siege to it for six months. He was re-elected as King of the Romans in 1252 and ruled as sole king after the death of Conrad IV of Hohenstaufen in 1254. He was about to cross the Alps and come to Rome to be crowned emperor by the pope when he died in battle.
One thing to note ist that under Charles the fourth the so called Golden Bull was signed. This one of the earliest constitutions if you will and it, among other things, specified the electors to be the King of Bohemia, Duke of Saxony, Margrave of Brandenburg, Count of the Palatinate as well as the Archbishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier. Prior it was not completely clear who was allowed to vote. Especially before the Interregnum one should not imagine elections like we know it. You just had to get enough nobles to back you, which was not so different from other countries at the time. Just that the German nobility was a bit freer in its choice, which limited the opportunities of the Kings to fully assert the authority of their dynasties but also possibly prevented or at least limited big succession wars
That's very interesting you pointed that out, thank you. For some reason I was really irked that the House of Liudolfing (Ottonian dynasty) didn't have an apparent link to the Carolingian dynasty.
You could make a video about who has the best claim to become king of Poland. It would definitely get the views but it could be a nightmare to research because: 1. For most of Polish history Polish throne was elective even though almost always the most senior male heir was elected to the throne. 2. If male line dies out then a woman can be elected a King of Poland (not queen) and then a husband for her would be elected to start a new dynasty. 3. Polish king could be pass though a woman line, but usually which through which woman it was decided during when the king lived. And it was usually through sister of last reigning Polish monarch, not through daughter. 4. As long there is valid marriage then child is able to inherit - morganatic marriages do NOT exclude from inheritance. The most obvious choices would be: - Daniel von Sachsen (due to Duchy of Warsaw) - Paul François Roman Sanguszko (due to being most senior descendant oAlexis Romanofff Jogaila brothers, if I am not mistaken) - Alexis Romanoff (due Russians emperors using tittle King of Poland, if I am not mistaken he is the most senior male descendant) - etc etc
There is a discussion going on, or maybe is over I am not checking, that every problem in Europe after Charlemagne can be attributed to the succession after the death of Louis the Pius.
Honestly feels a bit bland when the greaters emperors arent talked about much, I liked the videos where the greater rulers have a little rundown of the success they had in their reign.... Like Otto I, Frederick Barbarossa, and Charles IV, among others.
Holy Roman Empire Heiliges Römisches Reich Sanktum Impērium Romānum Svētā Romas Impērija As you can see the name of the country changes from language to language. So too changes the titule of its ruler. Emperor Keiser Imerātōr Ķeizars Dont assume the german words to mean something else from the english ones.
It is somewhat problematic to just follow family successions. Throughot the period of the Holy Roman Empire, German rulers were elected among multiple possible candidates ("Kurfürsten"). Even the first Kaiser of the Empire of 1871 wasn´t simply "being given the title of Emperor" but as King of Prussia, he was rather reluctant to take it. Wilhelm had to be persuaded to accept the office (since it didn´t yield revenue but in contrary cost a lot of money for representation).
While Otto IV was deposed in each Kingdom that made up the Empire.... According to Wikipedia, he remained Holy Roman Emperor until his death in 1218, though those last years of his life were relatively irrelevant.
I managed to trace my family tree back to Otto the Great (and through his wife Edith of England back to Alfred the Great and Anglo-Saxon royalty). It's fun when you find the bastard son of a noble in your family history because that then opens the door to a lot of the names in this chart.
Very lovely as always - I have the poster (got it for xmas) still looking for the right frame and location for it. BTW, I noticed that you seem to pronounce the German "Hohen" rather awkwardly - here's a hint: pronounce it as "Howen" instead - a lot of German speakers pronounce it this way.
"Well as others such as myself consider this The Empire of The Franks." >When Charlemagne was specifically crowned "Roman Emperor." >When Sacrum aka Sacred aka Holy. Wasn't an attached as c to Imperium Romanum until centuries into its existence by Frederick I so the excuse of different titled Empires doesnt work as an argument. Even if we went hy that did The HRE pre Frederick I should be called "The Germanic Empire" with that logic. >When EVERYONE in history up until the inception of Post Modernism, including every Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne's direct successors, & even Otto The Great Himself. Viewed Charlemagne as First New Emperor of Rome, with an interegnum following his death. Charlemagne's Empire as separate from The HRE is such an irrational idea that I must believe the one to propose it must've done so to spite The HRE. Not wanting to let it have its rightful 1000 years of life because its one of the biggest signs of its right to claim being a successor of Rome like The ERE. Why else push the farcical anachronism onto the Emperor & Empire that fathered all of Europe? This wanton disrespect of Charlemagne, his achievements, & his rebirth of The Roman Empire in Western Europe. Shoving it all in its own little box separated from the centuries of civilizational strides built on his, its all just vile. I do not know how you can honestly accept such revisionism. This is the man who Created the foundations for THE Bulwark of Western Christendom that would be the equal of The Eastern Empire. His love of Rome is why we had m The Carolingian Renaissance, when he brought education & Quality of life back to equal to Roman Standards. Charles purging The Arian Gnostics controlling The East Franks ended Gnosticism in europe after 800 of them subverting Christianity. But None of that mattered if it's "The Frankish Empire." Because it all apparently didnt matter. Meaning all that matters now is Otto & The Ottonian Renaissance. Not Charles or anyone else between Otto & The Fall of Rome. Which makes no sense considering Otto literally made a show of going to Vienna specifically to sit on Charlemagne's Throne and be seen as Charles' successor. Im sorry I've been so abrasive here, i enjoy the shit out of your content but it just baffles me that you honestly believe something so insane. I do hope that any of this help make it clear just how absurd it is to remove The HRE from its Creation in The Carolingian Dynast. Because to propose otherwise & claim them as separate concepts, separate ideas. Is intellectual dishonesty & historical revisionism of the highest order. Not to mention the consequences & damage to the historical record that accepting this notion would cause are astronomic.
I like the new design, but the new posters lack many smaller connections that the old west Poster had for example. Which is a shame because it lead to many fun research rabbit holes.
Hi Matt, I sadly noticed a mistake on this chart, but in the portuguese line of kings. The first Duke of Braganza, Afonso I, was an illegitimate son of King John I and not a son of King Edward.
Yup, and this also means that with the exception of the Habsburgs and the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas all of the portuguese dynasties, from the houses of Burgundy and Aviz to Braganza right down to the current duke of Braganza are all male line descendants of the french house of Capet. I would love for Matt to recognize this little fact ^^
@UsefulCharts question can you write here why you converted to Judaism and not christen and why you believe Judaism is right and not christenanty aka why you don't believe in New testament?
6:11 it should be noted that Frederic II was no longer a candidate at this point, as he had lost one of his eyes, most likely in battle, thus also giving him the name „The one eyed“. Chronist from both sides, Welfs and Hohenstaufens say that he was much more fitting for King and Emperor title than his younger brother.
I don't know if you're taking video ideas from these comments, but one thing I'd love to have explained in your manner is the various alliances between European powers at the turn of the 20th century, and how the cascade of mutual defense pacts precipitated WWI.
There's one detail to Charles V's "wise decision" (12:13) that IMO wasn't so wise: why did he leave the Low Countries to the Spanish empire instead of the German that it borders? Was he counting on Spanish military prowess (and gold from the Americas) to quash its nascent Protestantism? Even so it seems like it would have been operationally (and maybe culturally) easier for the Austrian empire to take charge of that, and maybe the Eighty Years' War wouldn't have been as bloody as it turned out to be. And maybe Spain would have held on to its empire for longer, for better or worse.
If you want to show Charles V as even more powerful you can mantioned that he also ruled over Spain's new world possesions. Or as he or someone said "the sun never sets for Spain " or something like that.
This is truly amazing! I am a part of these royal bloodlines too. I'm just learning more and more. Charlemange is one of my forefathers. Alexander the Great is another one.
It's not really accurate to say that the nobles preferred Conrad III over Henry the Proud. The election was, in fact, strongly contested, as, while Conrad was crowned in the right place with the right regalia, he wasn't elected by a regular assembly of princes at Frankfurt (the traditional place of elections) or crowned by the right Archbishop (he was crowned by a papal legate). Henry the Proud refused to recognize the election unless he was given Saxony, which Conrad refused, and a civil war consequently broke out.
2:00 this is completely wrong, Ludwig ("Louis the German") was only posthumously given nickname "The German" in the 18th century. Back then he was called "Rex Germaniae", "King of Germania" because his half of the Empire was to the east of the Rhine, in what Romans used to refer to as "Germania". If you think about it, it's a pretty nonsensical nickname, given that Franks are a German ethnicity, meaning they are all "The Germans".
They are a Germanic ethnicity, part of them would become German (Ripurian) and part of them would become Dutch (Salian) More to the point though, when Lious “the German” ruled, German identity didn’t at all exist, so they couldn’t refer the him as such. Whereas obviously Germania as a geographic region is a much older concept. The 18th century name is obviously just a reflection of rising German nationalism.
The Holy Roman Empire very much starts in 800. Germany could have just as easily fallen ouf the Empire was France for they bough fought over Itally and who ever controled it contoled the pope and could thus get the titule of emporor.
As far as i know, the man who killed Philipp of Swabia with a mace (?) was the Burggraf/ Castle Count of Nuremberg, this possition was hold by a branch of Hohenzollern dynasty, which later became Brandenburg/ Prussian branch. Arround Hohenzollern Castle, on Swabian Alb, up to three swabian branches existed, today only swabian branch Hohenzollern - Sigmaringen exists. In 1849 the King of mighty prussian branch got the two Principalities of small swabian branches as new province, the two Princes noticed during Revolution, that they needed Help from their mighty relatives. In late HRE the prussian Hohenzollern sometimes in wartime with Habsburg dynasty, used their swabian relatives for diplomacy. The swabian Hohenzollern had been related to prussian branch, but being powerless and catholic, they had good relations to Habsburg dynasty. A Last sidenote: Habsburg, Hohenzollern and Hohenstaufen dynasties came from medieval duchy , Swabia '!
6:22 I just want to point out that this is a bit of an oversimplification. The Welfs supported the pope simply because they wanted the imperial title. In fact, when Otto IV became emperor, one of his first acts as emperor was to proclaim an anti-pope and march on Rome
Ye that would be cool and that she had a claim on a defunct English title that is attained (or at least treated as such) and does continue under the jacobite peerage and also that she descends from James II through James FitzJames, Duke of Berwick
If you find King Edward III of England as a great grandfather in your lines, pretty much all of these old families will also be in your tree as Grandparents. Pretty fascinating, but not real rare at this point in time.
That's mostly a semantics thing, some historians consider when he conquered the title of king of italy as the starting date instead of when he was crowned.
8:35 Not this map again... neither Pommerania, nor East Prussia, not even Silesia were a part of the empire at that time. Silesia started falling piece by piece under the Czech Crown (and in turn the empire) only after 1335 and the last independent Silesian dutchy lasted until 1392. East Prussia on the other hand was never part of the HRE. This map gets copied from 19th century German ''history books'' and it pops up again and again without anyone fact-checking whether it is even correct.
You are wrong, Silesia fell only in the 13. hundreds to Bohemia, before that, the duchies of Opole and Silesia, both were feudatorys of the HRE, after Boleslaw IV. lost to Wladislaw II. (who got help from the Kaiser of the HRE and made himself a vassal). Now to Pommerania, Boleslaw III. conquered huge parts of Pommerania in 1113 - 1122, but he had to get under the feudal sovereignity of the HRE in 1135, only the samborides stayed autonomous since then, but in 1262 the samborides were dissolved and later Danzig fell to the teutonic knights. (There was also a short period, when the Danes held some parts of Pommerania, during this time). And now to East Prussia, the Kaisers of the HRE laid claim to all non-Christianized areas, according to Emperor Frederick II in the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226, in 1234 the pope ratified the claims of the teutonic order of East Prussia in the and Bull of Rimini, since 1230 the teutonic knights builded castles and fortresses. Only in 1283 was all of East Prussia under teutonic rule and there was no real threat of any baltic prussian anymore. You are in a completly diffrent time line!! The time line in this video during 8:35 , is clearly 12. hundreds.
@@Ghreinos Laying claim is not exactly a proof of posession in case of the Teutonic order and Pope's bulls had no real power this far east. Also the exact year wasn't stated in the video either so we can argure all we want - was it 1201? Or was it 1250? The fact is that the claims overlapped and nominally Silesia wasn't any more part of the empire as it was part of kingdom of Poland and only after the Czech Crown took over (after negociating it with local dukes and Polish kings) we can firmly agree Silesia became part of HRE. I'll definately read more about it but I can assure you this is not how this map is drawn in Polish publications.
Ferdinand I' s acquisition of the Hungarian kingdom was rather insignificant because it had already fallen to the armies of Sulayman the Magnificient of the Ottoman Empire. In Ferdiinand I's lifetime, the Germans were able to secure only a thin strip of land from the Hungarian kingdom (consisting of Slovakia, Slovenia & Dalmatia) to act as a buffer for Muslim slave-traders. It was during the reign of Leopold I that the entire kingdom of Hungary was reconquered back from the Ottomans.
Germany became a republic after WW1 then a Facist state in 1933. Though Kaiser Wilhelm II lived till 1941 and has many descendants who are given the titles of Prussia
You’re missing some kings of Germany during the great interregnum, at least like 4 kings. Even a member of then-English royalty was elected king at one point.
Honestly I just kept pressing "next" until I heard Matt Baker introduce himself... even if the super shitty digital sound of this video is a cheap attempt at getting AI to read the script, its still Matt Bakrr who I want to sleep to 😊❤
The German word for Cæsar is Kaiser. The Von Habsburgs going back to Otto Der Große were all called Kaiser. You made sound like a clever new 'throwback' title of ancient Rome (Kaiser) was reinstated by the Prussians.
a useful note to add is that, after the coronation by the pope in rome was "done away with" (as put in the video), holy roman emperors were technically only "emperors-elect".
@@sebe2255 ehm... this video is about names, dates and correct titles. the title an individual acquired after election to the office of h.r.e. was "emperor-elect". after coronation by the pope in rome (reflecting the "holy" and "roman" part of the title) the individual would be emperor tout court. no arcane knowledge here: i'm talking about the formal title here. as to the de facto power and influence, that didn't necessarily come after or with the coronation.
@@sebe2255 i mean no offense, but someone who watches these videos and therefore is interested in these topics is supposed to be able to also do some research on their own.. to be even more precise: individuals were elected "king of the romans" by the prince-electors, then crowned "holy roman emperor" by the pope. basically, the "elevation" of an individual to the office of h.r.e. was a double act: the election was required to grant political legitimacy and the coronation was needed for spiritual legitimacy (we all know the importance it had in the middle ages). given the centrality of the papacy in medieval european politics, and its frequent clashes with secular kings and princes, it could take months or years between election and coronation. the last emperor crowned in st. peter's in rome was frederik iii, the last by a pope was frederik's great-grandson, charles v, in bologna, in 1530 (? have to check the date..).
@@karlkarlos3545 it's not about english, it's about the origin of names and Louis and Ludwig doesn't even sound like the same Name. Btw nice profile picture. Greetings from Sachsen Anhalt (where the himmelsscheibe from Nebra was found).
@@Larrypint In English it's absolutely common to anglicise foreign names. BtW. The Germans do the same. For example "Heinrich Der Achte". (Grüße aus Berlin.)
You made a little mistake with the kings in and of Prussia. Actually the first two Prussian kings, Frederick I. and Frederick William I., were just kings in Prussia while Frederick the Great would go on to become king of Prussia in 1772. He was just king in Prussia as well from 1740-1772. The Hohenzollerns also kept their title of electors of Brandenburg up until the HRE was dissolved in 1806.
The Brandenburg branch of Hohenzollern had been inside of HRE only Electors of Brandenburg. Real Prussia was in HRE era NEVER a part of HRE. So i don' t know, when there was the name Change from ,in' to ,von'.
@@brittakriep2938 Yes, indeed. Prussia was never an independent Kingdom up until 1772 but a Duchy within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Electors of Brandenburg held the title of King even though they didn’t have a Kingdom to rule. They were just Kings residing in Prussia and not Kings of the Kingdom of Prussia which only came into existence in 1772 after the first partition of Poland between Russia and the Elector, with the Title of King, of Brandenburg that wanted to have an actual Kingdom to rule over outside the HRE to strengthen his political Position since he didn’t want to depend on the Emperor too much.
@@brittakriep2938 or to be more precise: until Prussia became an independent Kingdom, the Hohenzollerns were Dukes of Prussia under the polish King while their title of King had no Connection to the land or area of Prussia whatsoever. They were just landless Kings who were also the Dukes of Prussia and therefore Kings that resided in Prussia. That was the result of a compromise between Frederick William I., the Emperor of the HRE and the King of Poland to nominally grant the Hohenzollerns a King-title while still not fully equalizing them to the other Kings in Europe.
@@janushahn6950 : As far as i know, it was then allowed to call yourself, King in ...' without diplomatic problems, but not usual. In 1470s Last Duke of Burgundy, known as Charles the Bold, had territories in France and HRE. He asked Friedrich lll, as HRE Emperor on theory highest european ruler, if he can give him the rank of King, but Friedrich could not do so, he could not create a new Kingdom. A sidenote: What many people don' t know, the namegiving Hohenzollern ( mount and castle) is not somewhere in Brandenburg or Prussia, it is in southwest of Germany. Under best weather conditions i can see the Mountain from my Village. No problem is mount Hohenstaufen ( dynasty noted in Video), which is perhaps twenty kilometers away. One swabian branch of Hohenzollern dynasty is still allive.
2:07 It’s pronounced Germania. There is no sound like the English J sound in the Latin language. G is always the hard G sound as in “gold”. Also, each letter always makes the same sound (unless it appears in a special combo like one of four diphthongs), so both A’s would be pronounced identically.
But he pronounced it the English way, because that's his language. Maybe you should learn to deal with the fact that there isn't a "real" pronounciation of anything.
Buy the poster:
usefulcharts.com/products/european-royal-family-tree
Can you make a video about who would will be the rightful king of Byzantium?
19:41 *...up until the end of WW1
@@MikeGill87 corrected in subtitles. needs a pin comment
You could make a video about who has the best claim to become king of Poland. It would definitely get the views but it could be a nightmare to research because:
1. For most of Polish history Polish throne was elective even though almost always the most senior male heir was elected to the throne.
2. If male line dies out then a woman can be elected a King of Poland (not queen) and then a husband for her would be elected to start a new dynasty.
3. Polish king could be pass though a woman line, but usually which through which woman it was decided during when the king lived. And it was usually through sister of last reigning Polish monarch, not through daughter.
4. As long there is valid marriage then child is able to inherit - morganatic marriages do NOT exclude from inheritance.
The most obvious choices would be:
- Daniel von Sachsen (due to Duchy of Warsaw)
- Paul François Roman Sanguszko (due to being most senior descendant oAlexis Romanofff Jogaila brothers, if I am not mistaken)
- Alexis Romanoff (due Russians emperors using tittle King of Poland, if I am not mistaken he is the most senior male descendant)
- etc etc
hi i really appreciate your amazing work. I dont intend to buy the poster but really want to have a pdf version of this chart. How can i get one? thanks in advance!
"...a German Emperor and an Austrian Emperor, a situation that would continue up until the end of World War II." That should be "...until the end of World War I." Both the German and Austrian Empires were abolished at the end of the First World War.
Yep,noticed that too(19:44),although if you are using subtitles,it has it correct !😉
I mean, WW2 arguably had an austro-german empire...
The German Empire (as in, the German Reich) continued to exist legally and in name until 1945, but yes, the office of the Emperor was of course abolished in 1918.
@@gabriel.knight Hitler' s Nazi regime(1933-45) coined itself, ' the 3rd Reich' in allusion to the previous 2,namely the 2nd one which was the Hohenzollern dynastic,Prussian led version (1871-1918) and the 1st one which was the Holy Roman Empire(800/962-1806); however the last proper German Empire was officially and legally abolished in 1918 to be replaced by the Weimar Republic down to 1933.
@@MrSinclairn No, the Weimar Republic's name was always "German Reich." You can check the Weimar Constitution of 1919 to find it is the "Constitution of the German Reich" and this is also what contemporary politicians, including Social Democrats, publicly called the state. "Weimar Republic" is a historiographic term to post-mortem describe the republican period between 1918 and 1933.
19:18 A note: Though in english the emperors of the HRE are indeed called emperors, while the German Empire's heads of state are referred to as "Kaiser", it is important to note that the German word for the Holy Roman Emperor as well as the Austrian Empire's monarch had always been "Kaiser".
Iirc it’s believed the pronunciation of Kaiser is how the Romans pronounced Caesar
Nah, for us English speakers, the Kaiser is just the bad guy from WW1 😆
@@Carpediem357 it indeed is rather closer. The C in classical latin is always a "K" sound and ae were not an ä or æ sound, but a diphthong of ae/ai like in "hi" (the greeting).
@@UsefulCharts Interestingly enough though we have the word "Imperator" in german, taken straight from latin, the word "Kaiser" is used for any emperor, be it Roman Emperor, the Japanese Tennou or the "emperor of india" title the british used.
The English title of "Emperor" comes from the Old French "Empereor or Empereür", which in turn comes from the Latin "Imperator."
This was the title used by various historical monarches. But for those who believed themselves the direct successors of Rome and the heirs of Caesar & Augustus: The HRE on and off combined Kaiser with Imperator and sometimes Augustus, before it became just Kaiser in Germany and Austria; Czar in Russian; Kayser-i Rûm in Ottoman Turkish; And the Byzantine emperors used Caesar or Kaisar for their heirs/co-emperors before introducing Sebastokrator (Augustus Imperator/Ruler).
This is was a confusing mess to research, so feel free to correct me!
While the word "Kaiser" comes from the ancient name/title Caesar, it wasn't newly invented in 1871. It's just the german word for (every) Emperor. In German we use the term "Kaiser von Österreich" (of Austria), "Kaiser von China", Kaiser Napoleon, etc.
It's actually closer to how Caesar was actually pronounced in Latin
@@biggibbs4678 True. See also "Kaisar", the late ancient/medieval greek version of the name.
We still also call the Japanese emperor "Kaiser", like the current "Kaiser Naruhito". And if one watches the German dubbed version of the original Star Wars movie, at the meeting of the generals and officers where Vader chokes that one guy, they also refer to the emperor as "Kaiser" (in the later movies they started dubbing it as "Imperator") 😀
What about Kaiser Wilhelm II aka Queen Victoria's grandson
Caesar is actually pronounced keyser/kaiser in his latin origin
Charles the V inherited not only the biggest European empire, but at this stage, it was the first global empire where "the sun would never set," including America and part of Asia. Not only that, but for a brief period, he married his son Philip with the queen of England, which only left France outside of the Habsburgh reign.
That claim that Philip II would have had if he had inherited the HRE or a successful armada is quite extraordinary- basically the whole of Western Europe or the ancient Western Roman Empire's land.
An evil occult club! All high politicians are related to them! It 's a big club, but we ain't in it!
Fun fact fredrick 2 actually offered king haakon 4 of norway the holy roman throne but he denied it because he wanted to protect finnmark from the mongols
6:31 As for the kingdom of Sicily, the shield “argent, an eagle displayed sable” was used by the Hohenstaufens under king Manfred. The arms of the house of Hauteville were “azure, a bend chequy of gules and argent”.
Awesome to see your making remakes using your new chart
11:35 the low countries consist of more than just the netherlands. Which is the reason for the later outbreak of the 80 years war
Belgium was under the names Spanish Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands up to 1792 part of HRE. From 1815 to 1832 dutch King ruled current Netherlands and Belgium under the same crown, also Luxemburg as Greatduke of Luxemburg, a socalled ,Personal Union'.
It seems that two German kings are missing from the family tree:
William II (House of Holland): 1247-1256 (in opposition to Conrad IV until 1254)
Richard (House of Plantagenet): 1257-1272 (son of King John of England)
King Alfonso X of Castile also claimed the German crown from 1257 to 1275
One mistake: both Germany and Austria ceased to be monarchies at the end of World War I, not World War II.
Another minor mistakes: The title Kaiser was always used in the HRE, it is not a throwback to Roman times introduced in 1871. The word is very old. It existed as keisar in Old High German and as kayser in Middle High German.
A third mistake: Maximilian I was the first emperor not crowned by the pope. He introduced the title "Erwählter Römischer Kaiser" (= Elected Roman Emperor) or "divina favente clementia electus Romanorum Imperator, semper Augustus" (the full official title), which replaced the older title "Kaiser der Römer" (= Emperor of the Romans) or Romanorum Imperator. He also changed the title for the German king from Rex Romanorum (= König der Römer = King of the Romans) to Germaniae Rex (= König in Germanien = King in Germany).
The Roman Caesar is also pronounced the exact same way as German Kaiser.
@@Meton2526 I know, but it is important know that the word (and thus the title) Kaiser is not an invention of the 19th century (as suggested in the video) but is very old. It might even be one of the oldest loanwords in the German language. It may have entered the German language during the first century CE.
@@barbarossarotbart Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to correct you at all, just add context that the same word almost certainly goes back to the Roman Empire, just changing in spelling between two different languages, but the pronunciation and relative meaning being the same.
Wasn't actually Luis IV first emperor not being crowned by pope? He was crowned by Roman Senator Sciarra Colonna.
@@Macion-sm2ui But he was still crowned in Rome and he did not get the title with his election.
1:00 Charlemagne, 👑
2:18 Charles The Fat, Emperor.
3:20 Conrad I then Henry the Fowler.
3:45 Otto I, The Great.
936 - Otto, King of East Frankia
961 - Otto, Holy Roman Emperor
4:32 Otto II 973-983 reign
Otto III 983-1002 reign
5:04 Conrad II 1024-1039 reign.
Conrad II conquered Burgundy. Making the Holy Roman Empire: Germany + Italy + Burgundy
5:22 A bunch of Counts and Emperors later 6:11 A Conflict between the House of Welf and the House of Hohenstaufen
6:43 Frederick Barbarossa, the crusader Emperor. 1152-1190
7:41 Philip of Swabia is the only Holy Roman Emperor to be Assassinated.
9:00 The Great Interregnum
No Holy Roman Emperor would be in power from 1250-1312
9:15 Count Kings, 4 Houses.
• Hapsburgs
• Nassau
• Luxembourg
• Wittelsbach
11:17 Frederick III 1440-1493 reign
11:48 Charles V
• Holy Roman Emperor
• Ruler of Spain 🇪🇸
• Ruler of the Dutch Low-country
• Ruler of parts of Italy & Sardinia
Preparing for Charles V death, he have his brother, Ferdinand I, take control of Holy Rome Empire and his son, Phillip II, control of Spain
Austrian 🇦🇹Hapsburgs
Spanish 🇪🇸Hapsburgs
13:34 The 30 Years War 1618-1648
14:18 Leopold I
15:13 Joseph I, then Charles VI. No children
The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748
Britain and Austria vs France and Prussia
16:14 Seven Years War 1756-1763
Britain and Prussia vs France and Austria
17:24 Francis II is the final Holy Roman Emperor, since Napoleon de facto ends The Holy Roman Empire with his conquest of Europe.
17:47 HRE --> Empire of Austria
18:37 Austro-Prussian War of 1866
19:23 Otto Von Bismarck
1860s 2 Emperors exist
German Emperor and Austrian Emperor
please correct the spelling of Habsburg; with a "b"
Yeah thanks, I watched the video too.
The namegiving castle Habichtsburg is in Swiss Canton Aargau.
The best moment of the week is when you post something.
Charlemagne was truly the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire as the Franks were also German. I can understand saying that the Holy Roman Emperor began with the elected emperors.
You are making your own history now.
Charlemagne never was a Holy Roman Emperor, he was Emperor of the Romans.
The first HREmperor was Otto.
The Franks weren't Germans, they were Franks, a GERMANIC tribe. Germanic ≠ German.
Thanks for showing the connections between the West's empires.
Might just be me, but looking at maps, it seemed Charles V ruled more land than Charlemagne...
Because Spain and France are around the same size, and Charles had control or at least influence of almost all of Italy by the time his reign ended, and the Holy Roman Empire stretched further east than Charlemagne's Empire did, so I'd say Charles V's Empire was even bigger
And that's only in Europe. Charles abdicated in 1556, at which point Spain had conquered huge areas in the Americas, making this not even a contest any more.
He also ruled over the Spanish colonies in America. I think that eclipse Charlemagne by a lot.
He undoubtedly had a bigger realm than Charlemagne did
I agree, but you have to remember that he didn't really control the HRE, only the Low Countries and Austria. The states of the HRE were very autonomous and made their own decisions. Especially with the rise of Protestantism during his reign leading to further divide in the empire. But with Spain, Sardinia and Sicily and Naples he still controlled huge kingdoms, and the Low Countries and Spanish Colonies were making him extremely rich.
@@DutchSimmer1 The Low Countries were just as much a part of the HRE as the rest of them, he just spent most of his time there, as he was also raised there.
Holy Roman Empire every time they aren't at war for more than 50 years:
*Has a mini renaissance*
You forgot William II of Holland among the Count-Kings of the Great Interregnum. He was elected anti-king of Germany in 1248 and was crowned in Aachen in the same year after laying siege to it for six months. He was re-elected as King of the Romans in 1252 and ruled as sole king after the death of Conrad IV of Hohenstaufen in 1254. He was about to cross the Alps and come to Rome to be crowned emperor by the pope when he died in battle.
Philip of Swabia being "the only King to be Assassinated" wasn't true.
Albert I was assassinated as well in 1308.
I stand corrected.
One thing to note ist that under Charles the fourth the so called Golden Bull was signed.
This one of the earliest constitutions if you will and it, among other things, specified the electors to be the King of Bohemia, Duke of Saxony, Margrave of Brandenburg, Count of the Palatinate as well as the Archbishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier.
Prior it was not completely clear who was allowed to vote. Especially before the Interregnum one should not imagine elections like we know it. You just had to get enough nobles to back you, which was not so different from other countries at the time. Just that the German nobility was a bit freer in its choice, which limited the opportunities of the Kings to fully assert the authority of their dynasties but also possibly prevented or at least limited big succession wars
Just a note… Henry the Fowler is likely descended from Louis the Pious through Berengar I’s sister
That's very interesting you pointed that out, thank you. For some reason I was really irked that the House of Liudolfing (Ottonian dynasty) didn't have an apparent link to the Carolingian dynasty.
You could make a video about who has the best claim to become king of Poland. It would definitely get the views but it could be a nightmare to research because:
1. For most of Polish history Polish throne was elective even though almost always the most senior male heir was elected to the throne.
2. If male line dies out then a woman can be elected a King of Poland (not queen) and then a husband for her would be elected to start a new dynasty.
3. Polish king could be pass though a woman line, but usually which through which woman it was decided during when the king lived. And it was usually through sister of last reigning Polish monarch, not through daughter.
4. As long there is valid marriage then child is able to inherit - morganatic marriages do NOT exclude from inheritance.
The most obvious choices would be:
- Daniel von Sachsen (due to Duchy of Warsaw)
- Paul François Roman Sanguszko (due to being most senior descendant oAlexis Romanofff Jogaila brothers, if I am not mistaken)
- Alexis Romanoff (due Russians emperors using tittle King of Poland, if I am not mistaken he is the most senior male descendant)
- etc etc
There is a discussion going on, or maybe is over I am not checking, that every problem in Europe after Charlemagne can be attributed to the succession after the death of Louis the Pius.
Easily one of my favorite videos so far, excellent video! I can't wait to see next!
Thank you I’ve been waiting for this
Honestly feels a bit bland when the greaters emperors arent talked about much, I liked the videos where the greater rulers have a little rundown of the success they had in their reign....
Like Otto I, Frederick Barbarossa, and Charles IV, among others.
Holy Roman Empire
Heiliges Römisches Reich
Sanktum Impērium Romānum
Svētā Romas Impērija
As you can see the name of the country changes from language to language. So too changes the titule of its ruler.
Emperor
Keiser
Imerātōr
Ķeizars
Dont assume the german words to mean something else from the english ones.
It is somewhat problematic to just follow family successions. Throughot the period of the Holy Roman Empire, German rulers were elected among multiple possible candidates ("Kurfürsten"). Even the first Kaiser of the Empire of 1871 wasn´t simply "being given the title of Emperor" but as King of Prussia, he was rather reluctant to take it. Wilhelm had to be persuaded to accept the office (since it didn´t yield revenue but in contrary cost a lot of money for representation).
2:00 the name "The German" is an 18th century invention
No, for 2000 years
While Otto IV was deposed in each Kingdom that made up the Empire....
According to Wikipedia, he remained Holy Roman Emperor until his death in 1218, though those last years of his life were relatively irrelevant.
Francis II, by declaring himself as Emperor of Austria prior to dissolving the HRE, is also history's only doppelkaiser (double emperor).
Fun to see some people here that I'm related to (I'm descendant of King Eric X of Sweden so that's how I am)
I managed to trace my family tree back to Otto the Great (and through his wife Edith of England back to Alfred the Great and Anglo-Saxon royalty). It's fun when you find the bastard son of a noble in your family history because that then opens the door to a lot of the names in this chart.
💚🤍❤ all your videos mate👍
the knot theory afficionados had fun with this one
Very lovely as always - I have the poster (got it for xmas) still looking for the right frame and location for it. BTW, I noticed that you seem to pronounce the German "Hohen" rather awkwardly - here's a hint: pronounce it as "Howen" instead - a lot of German speakers pronounce it this way.
The Staufen was worse imo
"Well as others such as myself consider this The Empire of The Franks."
>When Charlemagne was specifically crowned "Roman Emperor."
>When Sacrum aka Sacred aka Holy. Wasn't an attached as c to Imperium Romanum until centuries into its existence by Frederick I so the excuse of different titled Empires doesnt work as an argument. Even if we went hy that did The HRE pre Frederick I should be called "The Germanic Empire" with that logic.
>When EVERYONE in history up until the inception of Post Modernism, including every Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne's direct successors, & even Otto The Great Himself. Viewed Charlemagne as First New Emperor of Rome, with an interegnum following his death.
Charlemagne's Empire as separate from The HRE is such an irrational idea that I must believe the one to propose it must've done so to spite The HRE. Not wanting to let it have its rightful 1000 years of life because its one of the biggest signs of its right to claim being a successor of Rome like The ERE. Why else push the farcical anachronism onto the Emperor & Empire that fathered all of Europe?
This wanton disrespect of Charlemagne, his achievements, & his rebirth of The Roman Empire in Western Europe. Shoving it all in its own little box separated from the centuries of civilizational strides built on his, its all just vile.
I do not know how you can honestly accept such revisionism. This is the man who Created the foundations for THE Bulwark of Western Christendom that would be the equal of The Eastern Empire. His love of Rome is why we had m The Carolingian Renaissance, when he brought education & Quality of life back to equal to Roman Standards. Charles purging The Arian Gnostics controlling The East Franks ended Gnosticism in europe after 800 of them subverting Christianity.
But None of that mattered if it's "The Frankish Empire." Because it all apparently didnt matter. Meaning all that matters now is Otto & The Ottonian Renaissance. Not Charles or anyone else between Otto & The Fall of Rome. Which makes no sense considering Otto literally made a show of going to Vienna specifically to sit on Charlemagne's Throne and be seen as Charles' successor.
Im sorry I've been so abrasive here, i enjoy the shit out of your content but it just baffles me that you honestly believe something so insane. I do hope that any of this help make it clear just how absurd it is to remove The HRE from its Creation in The Carolingian Dynast. Because to propose otherwise & claim them as separate concepts, separate ideas. Is intellectual dishonesty & historical revisionism of the highest order. Not to mention the consequences & damage to the historical record that accepting this notion would cause are astronomic.
I like the new design, but the new posters lack many smaller connections that the old west
Poster had for example. Which is a shame because it lead to many fun research rabbit holes.
Hi Matt, I sadly noticed a mistake on this chart, but in the portuguese line of kings. The first Duke of Braganza, Afonso I, was an illegitimate son of King John I and not a son of King Edward.
Thanks. I'll fix it before the next printing.
Yup, and this also means that with the exception of the Habsburgs and the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas all of the portuguese dynasties, from the houses of Burgundy and Aviz to Braganza right down to the current duke of Braganza are all male line descendants of the french house of Capet. I would love for Matt to recognize this little fact ^^
@UsefulCharts question can you write here why you converted to Judaism and not christen and why you believe Judaism is right and not christenanty aka why you don't believe in New testament?
6:11 it should be noted that Frederic II was no longer a candidate at this point, as he had lost one of his eyes, most likely in battle, thus also giving him the name „The one eyed“.
Chronist from both sides, Welfs and Hohenstaufens say that he was much more fitting for King and Emperor title than his younger brother.
I don't know if you're taking video ideas from these comments, but one thing I'd love to have explained in your manner is the various alliances between European powers at the turn of the 20th century, and how the cascade of mutual defense pacts precipitated WWI.
King William of Holland is once again ignored poor guy
9:50 There is no difference between being elected king and emperor. The difference is being crowned by the pope at this point.
There's one detail to Charles V's "wise decision" (12:13) that IMO wasn't so wise: why did he leave the Low Countries to the Spanish empire instead of the German that it borders? Was he counting on Spanish military prowess (and gold from the Americas) to quash its nascent Protestantism? Even so it seems like it would have been operationally (and maybe culturally) easier for the Austrian empire to take charge of that, and maybe the Eighty Years' War wouldn't have been as bloody as it turned out to be. And maybe Spain would have held on to its empire for longer, for better or worse.
If you want to show Charles V as even more powerful you can mantioned that he also ruled over Spain's new world possesions. Or as he or someone said "the sun never sets for Spain " or something like that.
You could make an entire video on the War of the Spanish Succession and we would all be enthralled
This is truly amazing! I am a part of these royal bloodlines too. I'm just learning more and more. Charlemange is one of my forefathers. Alexander the Great is another one.
It's not really accurate to say that the nobles preferred Conrad III over Henry the Proud. The election was, in fact, strongly contested, as, while Conrad was crowned in the right place with the right regalia, he wasn't elected by a regular assembly of princes at Frankfurt (the traditional place of elections) or crowned by the right Archbishop (he was crowned by a papal legate). Henry the Proud refused to recognize the election unless he was given Saxony, which Conrad refused, and a civil war consequently broke out.
are you going to do
a video on the the Byzantine emperors up to 1453?
It would be nice if this chart included Hungary as well, since there's so much crossover with the Germans and even the French there.
Great telling of the tale. Makes the Wars of succession (Spain and Austria) easier to understand.
I wonder…if Salic Houses had been non-Salic, would there have been fewer wars of succession?
2:00 this is completely wrong, Ludwig ("Louis the German") was only posthumously given nickname "The German" in the 18th century. Back then he was called "Rex Germaniae", "King of Germania" because his half of the Empire was to the east of the Rhine, in what Romans used to refer to as "Germania". If you think about it, it's a pretty nonsensical nickname, given that Franks are a German ethnicity, meaning they are all "The Germans".
They are a Germanic ethnicity, part of them would become German (Ripurian) and part of them would become Dutch (Salian)
More to the point though, when Lious “the German” ruled, German identity didn’t at all exist, so they couldn’t refer the him as such. Whereas obviously Germania as a geographic region is a much older concept. The 18th century name is obviously just a reflection of rising German nationalism.
Thats true
The Holy Roman Empire very much starts in 800. Germany could have just as easily fallen ouf the Empire was France for they bough fought over Itally and who ever controled it contoled the pope and could thus get the titule of emporor.
So glad you avoided the Spanish Habsburgs that spaghetti junction family tree makes my brain hurt 😂
As far as i know, the man who killed Philipp of Swabia with a mace (?) was the Burggraf/ Castle Count of Nuremberg, this possition was hold by a branch of Hohenzollern dynasty, which later became Brandenburg/ Prussian branch. Arround Hohenzollern Castle, on Swabian Alb, up to three swabian branches existed, today only swabian branch Hohenzollern - Sigmaringen exists. In 1849 the King of mighty prussian branch got the two Principalities of small swabian branches as new province, the two Princes noticed during Revolution, that they needed Help from their mighty relatives. In late HRE the prussian Hohenzollern sometimes in wartime with Habsburg dynasty, used their swabian relatives for diplomacy. The swabian Hohenzollern had been related to prussian branch, but being powerless and catholic, they had good relations to Habsburg dynasty. A Last sidenote: Habsburg, Hohenzollern and Hohenstaufen dynasties came from medieval duchy , Swabia '!
Ah! Been waiting for this.
This is wonderful!!!
Now this is a birthday gift that I really would want
6:22 I just want to point out that this is a bit of an oversimplification. The Welfs supported the pope simply because they wanted the imperial title. In fact, when Otto IV became emperor, one of his first acts as emperor was to proclaim an anti-pope and march on Rome
It would be awesome to see a chart on the late duchess of alba to see how she had so many titles!!!
Ye that would be cool and that she had a claim on a defunct English title that is attained (or at least treated as such) and does continue under the jacobite peerage and also that she descends from James II through James FitzJames, Duke of Berwick
Wild to watch just how intergenerationally the royal houses be
Do the Gucci family next !!! Very interesting stuff that needs to be said there !!
very complicated but very well done.
Everytime I see that painting of Charles II, IT makes me giggle 😂
If you find King Edward III of England as a great grandfather in your lines, pretty much all of these old families will also be in your tree as Grandparents. Pretty fascinating, but not real rare at this point in time.
Thanks!
One thing I knew that "Charles IV, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, had a long and successful reign"
charles the bald and charles the fat. Wow the people who named them that were cruel
You said that 961 is the starting date, but Otto was only crowned as emperor in 962.
That's mostly a semantics thing, some historians consider when he conquered the title of king of italy as the starting date instead of when he was crowned.
kind of wierd seeing somebody i use to know at the end there, was int the same boarding school as Wilhelm of Wuttemberg for a year
Charles V/I also ruled over a large chunk of the Americas
King Albert I has also been assasinated by his nephew John of Swabia, who was called „Parricida“. So there were two German kings to be murdered. 😉
8:35 Not this map again... neither Pommerania, nor East Prussia, not even Silesia were a part of the empire at that time. Silesia started falling piece by piece under the Czech Crown (and in turn the empire) only after 1335 and the last independent Silesian dutchy lasted until 1392. East Prussia on the other hand was never part of the HRE.
This map gets copied from 19th century German ''history books'' and it pops up again and again without anyone fact-checking whether it is even correct.
You are wrong, Silesia fell only in the 13. hundreds to Bohemia, before that, the duchies of Opole and Silesia, both were feudatorys of the HRE, after Boleslaw IV. lost to Wladislaw II. (who got help from the Kaiser of the HRE and made himself a vassal). Now to Pommerania, Boleslaw III. conquered huge parts of Pommerania in 1113 - 1122, but he had to get under the feudal sovereignity of the HRE in 1135, only the samborides stayed autonomous since then, but in 1262 the samborides were dissolved and later Danzig fell to the teutonic knights. (There was also a short period, when the Danes held some parts of Pommerania, during this time). And now to East Prussia, the Kaisers of the HRE laid claim to all non-Christianized areas, according to Emperor Frederick II in the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226, in 1234 the pope ratified the claims of the teutonic order of East Prussia in the and Bull of Rimini, since 1230 the teutonic knights builded castles and fortresses. Only in 1283 was all of East Prussia under teutonic rule and there was no real threat of any baltic prussian anymore.
You are in a completly diffrent time line!! The time line in this video during 8:35 , is clearly 12. hundreds.
@@Ghreinos Laying claim is not exactly a proof of posession in case of the Teutonic order and Pope's bulls had no real power this far east. Also the exact year wasn't stated in the video either so we can argure all we want - was it 1201? Or was it 1250? The fact is that the claims overlapped and nominally Silesia wasn't any more part of the empire as it was part of kingdom of Poland and only after the Czech Crown took over (after negociating it with local dukes and Polish kings) we can firmly agree Silesia became part of HRE.
I'll definately read more about it but I can assure you this is not how this map is drawn in Polish publications.
@@kacperwoch4368 As I said 1283 was all of Prussia under teutonic rule and Silesia was a protectorate of the HRE.
Ferdinand I' s acquisition of the Hungarian kingdom was rather insignificant because it had already fallen to the armies of Sulayman the Magnificient of the Ottoman Empire. In Ferdiinand I's lifetime, the Germans were able to secure only a thin strip of land from the Hungarian kingdom (consisting of Slovakia, Slovenia & Dalmatia) to act as a buffer for Muslim slave-traders. It was during the reign of Leopold I that the entire kingdom of Hungary was reconquered back from the Ottomans.
Germany became a republic after WW1 then a Facist state in 1933. Though Kaiser Wilhelm II lived till 1941 and has many descendants who are given the titles of Prussia
Given by who? They just pretend to titles that don’t exist anymore
@@sebe2255 Wilhelm. They aren’t pretend titles.
Do Nero family tree
Great video!
You’re missing some kings of Germany during the great interregnum, at least like 4 kings. Even a member of then-English royalty was elected king at one point.
I am a little amused that you didn't touch upon the fact that the Habsburg's don't have a family tree so much as a family ladder.
Good video.
Is UsefulCharts going to make a video about Byzantine Emperors?
19:38 surely you meant to say world war one?
Honestly I just kept pressing "next" until I heard Matt Baker introduce himself... even if the super shitty digital sound of this video is a cheap attempt at getting AI to read the script, its still Matt Bakrr who I want to sleep to 😊❤
So the series countine let's go
My insensitive ass be laughing at Charles the fat and Charles the bald the way I did with Bran the cripple 💀
Louis the German was not called German in his lifetime that was added to him later to distinguish him other Louis(s).
The German word for Cæsar is Kaiser. The Von Habsburgs going back to Otto Der Große were all called Kaiser. You made sound like a clever new 'throwback' title of ancient Rome (Kaiser) was reinstated by the Prussians.
Otto was not a Habsburg
When will you make an updated version to The North/East European Family Trees?
Hail Our Only True Emperor Xenu!
👑 Thank you 👑
I wonder if we’ll ever have a French kings from this chart
They have a vid on that
I know, I was talking about
Since they redid the chart, they already updated the British monarchs video
Hey Matt... didn't you say a while ago on reddit that you would also remake the North / East Chart as well?
Or is it just the West Chart?
Eventually, I'm going to. Not set date yet.
Please make a remake of "Who would be kings of Germany today" on May 20.
The only houses I`m related to are house if Ivrea mostly (because of kings of Castille, and Leon), and also Welf and Hohenstaufen
a useful note to add is that, after the coronation by the pope in rome was "done away with" (as put in the video), holy roman emperors were technically only "emperors-elect".
Not really, if they fulfill every practical function of the role. That just means the custom changed
@@sebe2255 ehm... this video is about names, dates and correct titles. the title an individual acquired after election to the office of h.r.e. was "emperor-elect". after coronation by the pope in rome (reflecting the "holy" and "roman" part of the title) the individual would be emperor tout court. no arcane knowledge here: i'm talking about the formal title here. as to the de facto power and influence, that didn't necessarily come after or with the coronation.
the best case of a h.r. emperor that was never "-elect" is that of charlemagne himself, since pope leo iii chose and crowned him right away.
@@Yongle96 Have they ever been referred to as emperor elect or are you literally just making all of this up?
@@sebe2255 i mean no offense, but someone who watches these videos and therefore is interested in these topics is supposed to be able to also do some research on their own.. to be even more precise: individuals were elected "king of the romans" by the prince-electors, then crowned "holy roman emperor" by the pope. basically, the "elevation" of an individual to the office of h.r.e. was a double act: the election was required to grant political legitimacy and the coronation was needed for spiritual legitimacy (we all know the importance it had in the middle ages). given the centrality of the papacy in medieval european politics, and its frequent clashes with secular kings and princes, it could take months or years between election and coronation. the last emperor crowned in st. peter's in rome was frederik iii, the last by a pope was frederik's great-grandson, charles v, in bologna, in 1530 (? have to check the date..).
What about Richard of Cornwall?
It wasn't "Louis" the german , it was Ludwig. And it wasn't Henry, it was Heinrich III.
Are you new to the English language?
@@karlkarlos3545 it's not about english, it's about the origin of names and Louis and Ludwig doesn't even sound like the same Name.
Btw nice profile picture. Greetings from Sachsen Anhalt (where the himmelsscheibe from Nebra was found).
@@Larrypint In English it's absolutely common to anglicise foreign names. BtW. The Germans do the same. For example "Heinrich Der Achte". (Grüße aus Berlin.)
@@Larrypint Subjektiv
I'm also pretty sure it wasn't Ludwig, but rather something like the Frankish Hludovig.
You made a little mistake with the kings in and of Prussia. Actually the first two Prussian kings, Frederick I. and Frederick William I., were just kings in Prussia while Frederick the Great would go on to become king of Prussia in 1772. He was just king in Prussia as well from 1740-1772. The Hohenzollerns also kept their title of electors of Brandenburg up until the HRE was dissolved in 1806.
The Brandenburg branch of Hohenzollern had been inside of HRE only Electors of Brandenburg. Real Prussia was in HRE era NEVER a part of HRE. So i don' t know, when there was the name Change from ,in' to ,von'.
@@brittakriep2938 Yes, indeed. Prussia was never an independent Kingdom up until 1772 but a Duchy within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Electors of Brandenburg held the title of King even though they didn’t have a Kingdom to rule. They were just Kings residing in Prussia and not Kings of the Kingdom of Prussia which only came into existence in 1772 after the first partition of Poland between Russia and the Elector, with the Title of King, of Brandenburg that wanted to have an actual Kingdom to rule over outside the HRE to strengthen his political Position since he didn’t want to depend on the Emperor too much.
@@brittakriep2938 or to be more precise: until Prussia became an independent Kingdom, the Hohenzollerns were Dukes of Prussia under the polish King while their title of King had no Connection to the land or area of Prussia whatsoever. They were just landless Kings who were also the Dukes of Prussia and therefore Kings that resided in Prussia. That was the result of a compromise between Frederick William I., the Emperor of the HRE and the King of Poland to nominally grant the Hohenzollerns a King-title while still not fully equalizing them to the other Kings in Europe.
@@janushahn6950 : As far as i know, it was then allowed to call yourself, King in ...' without diplomatic problems, but not usual. In 1470s Last Duke of Burgundy, known as Charles the Bold, had territories in France and HRE. He asked Friedrich lll, as HRE Emperor on theory highest european ruler, if he can give him the rank of King, but Friedrich could not do so, he could not create a new Kingdom.
A sidenote: What many people don' t know, the namegiving Hohenzollern ( mount and castle) is not somewhere in Brandenburg or Prussia, it is in southwest of Germany. Under best weather conditions i can see the Mountain from my Village. No problem is mount Hohenstaufen ( dynasty noted in Video), which is perhaps twenty kilometers away. One swabian branch of Hohenzollern dynasty is still allive.
Could you make a video about who would be king/queen of romania today
2:07 It’s pronounced Germania. There is no sound like the English J sound in the Latin language. G is always the hard G sound as in “gold”. Also, each letter always makes the same sound (unless it appears in a special combo like one of four diphthongs), so both A’s would be pronounced identically.
But he pronounced it the English way, because that's his language. Maybe you should learn to deal with the fact that there isn't a "real" pronounciation of anything.
Wencislaus von Luxembourg? What is this name? Since when can german kings have slavic names? So weird.