Some people need to get the pump primed.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=10159951
I disagree that it was not an empire. Though almost entirely Germanic throughout it’s history, it contained a wide variety of kingdoms, principalities, and dukedoms, bishoprics, and autonomous collectives - the very definition of an empire.
Well, if it’s already resolved, I don’t see why this belongs in a forum for debates…
I’d comment on this but I would lose one of my best lines from my upcoming Kaspar Hauser Staff Report. For which I am closing in on getting all (the only one, but its taken years because the one guy is just not talking, but I’m getting pissed enough to publicly take him to task for it) of the outstanding questions answered.
And, for a different question altogether, where did I get the idea that, by the late 18th century, there were roughly 15,000 princelings in the HRE? The number seems high, unless you include dukes, archdukes, sons of bishops (Lutheran, of course), and all. I mean, there was a shitload of minicountries in the HRE.
I’ve been having this argument with the Yanks as long as I’ve been on the boards, which is a couple of years now.
To them, “Resolved” means “This matter is up for discussion”.
For the rest of the English-speaking world, it means “This matter has already been discussed at length and an agreement, conclusion, or course of action decided upon”
I’ve suggested that “Resolved” be replaced with “Mooted” or something similar, but without much luck so far…
It could fairly be called an empire, as it engulfed multiple cultures - German ( of various types including Dutch, Low German, High German, etc. ), Czechs and other Slavs, and Latinate groups ( “French”, Provencal, Italians, etc. ).
It can more tenuously be called Roman. It claimed continuity of tradition ( however broken ) with the Western Roman Empire, its religious center was Rome, it was ceremonially crowned by Roman popes, Rome was technically ( but never really actually ) part of the Kingdom of Italy, a possesion of the emperors.
It can tenuously be called holy, as it claimed religious legitimacy via their special relationship with the Popes.
All of the above is debateable of course, but there you go.
Someone wanted a bigger title and the excuse for more bling.
It’s no more unusual than the Oxford debates’ form, “It is the opinion of this house that…”, when obviously it doesn’t become the opinion of the house until the debate is over and it’s voted on.
Likewise, “Resolved, X” doesn’t become resolved until the debate is over and the resolution is voted on.
The territory encompassed by the Holy Roman Empire included people that made the bulk of the Western Roman empire’s population after the split with the Byzantines in the east. They had as much right to call themselves Roman as Constantinople did, but people insist that the Byzantine empire was the successor to Rome, and not the Germanic people of Europe. I don’t know why this is so, when Rome was represented by Germanic people so much more than by east Europeans or Semetic people.
I disagree. The Byzantine Empire was a direct successor of the Eastern Roman Empire, keeping the capital at Constantinople until 1453. Admittedly the make up of the Eastern Roman Empire was far more Greek than Roman, and you could argue it was a mere rump state, but a rump state comprising of what was left of the Roman Empire nevertheless.
The Holy Roman Empire, by contrast, merely painted itself as a successor to the Western Roman Empire. How much of Germany was encompassed by the Western Roman Empire? More of a historical irony that the long standing enemies of Rome should eventually pretend to be Roman.
The HRE also included northern and central Italy and large parts of Roman Gaul, and the title was betowed by the Pope, so it certainly has a claim for succession.
Well, no. There are various definitions of “empire.” It could mean a monarchical state whose monarch is considered of a higher degree of dignity than an ordinary king, even if it includes but one ethnocultural nation, like Japan for most of its history. It could mean a multinational state with one nation dominant over the others, which the HRE was. It could mean just a really big state. Or it could mean an entirely independent state. When Henry VIII declared, “This island is an empire!” he was not claiming the right to style himself by the title of emperor, nor sovereignty over any non-English peoples or territories (though he did rule some such, e.g., Ireland); he was merely asserting England was a wholly independent kingdom owing no fealty or allegiance to any foreign prince, such as the emperor of Germany or the bishop of Rome.
You could argue the same thing about France during the Avignon papacy. The Holy Roman Empire came about 400 years after the Western Roman Empire had dissolved. The Byzantine Empire was an unbroken continuation from the time of Constantine I; there’s no comparison. The only ones who could call themselves ‘Roman’ with any degree of accuracy would be them.
The Greeks weren’t long standing enemies of Rome?
Sorry, that argument doesn’t fly. When Rome fought the Vandals that eventually sacked the city, it was Germanic people who resisted them. Roman armies had more Germanic soldiers than probably all other ethnic groups combined. The Germanic people were “long standing enemies” of Rome in the sense that the Seminoles are long standing enemies of America. Sure, 200 years ago that was true, but now almost everyone with Seminole blood is American, and when Rome was sacked almost everyone with Germanic blood was Roman.
I would accept your argument if Germany was ever a part of the Roman Empire.
Greek land was assimilated by the Romans, just as in you analogy Seminole lands were taken over by the US, whereas there was a fine line between Roman lands and Germania.
The HRE, simply put, wanted to sponge off the glory that was Rome.
Was it Holy?
It was sanctioned by the Pope, and the Emperor was crowned by the Pope, for much of the existence of the Empire. As such, it was “Holy.”
Was it Roman?
It did not claim to be the “Roman” Empire until after the Great Schism. Since the Byzantines had broken with the church that was established in Rome, one can claim that they had at that point ended their pretension to being the continuation of the “Roman” state. Thus, the Empire that was officially sanctioned by the Pope, and which controlled Italy, should be considered “Roman” if any empire could be.
Was it an Empire?
An “empire” is a state that extends its dominion beyond the boundaries of the area in which the dominant cutural and ethnic population controlling the empire live. Japan is not an empire any more, despite the self-styled emperor on the Chrysanthemum Throne. The HRE was Germanic in its main culture, but extended beyond just the areas controlled by the Germans (for example, the Italian peninsula). It could reasonably be considered an “empire” for this reason.
I would only weigh in to assert that, in order for the Empire to be Roman the people within must, to a greater or lesser degree, view themselves as Romans. I’ve seen no evidence that the citizens of the HRE ever considered themselves anything more or less than Germans/Italians. The people of the Byzantine Empire, however Greek their cultural heritage might be, continued to refer to themselves as Romaioi (Romans) long past the actual dissolution of their state.
It’s entirely possible for a couple of key reasons. In the tradition of Germanic nobility, all sons of a noble were considered noble, unlike the British system in all family members are commoners except for the patriarch and his consort. Accordingly, in German noble families the sons all got to use the title, be it “Prinz”, “Fuerst”, “Herzog”, or what have you, and so did their own sons after them. So if a prince married and had five sons, each of whom in turn had five sons, you would have thirty-one Princes a-Prince-ing. These princes would not all be royalty, or have any hope of becoming kings, but princes they were according to the custom.
The other reason is that Fuerst, commonly rendered as ‘prince’ in English, was usually considerably lower in rank than what we traditionally think of for princes. Fuerst can sometimes refer to just a local ruler and can sometimes be translated as ‘lord’ in historical and fictional contexts. In LOTR, the character Faramir has no other potential title than Steward of Gondor, although his aristocratic breeding and heritage is clear. ‘Lord’ as used for Faramir became Fuerst in my German translation of the book; when King Elessar raises him Prince of Ithilien at the end, then he becomes a Prinz in German.
Debate is the only arena in which Americans use “resolved” in this way. In everything else, it means exactly the same as the way you use it. The first few times I saw it used in the debate way, it seemed weird as hell to me too.
I still think it’s weird to use “Resolved” to indicate “This matter is up for discussion”; it’s up there with “Discuss” at the end of thread titles as “Minor things on the board that really annoy me but apparently no-one else.”
FTR, “Discuss” annoys me because it sounds like something from a Bursary Exam, not an intelligent adult conversation on a messageboard.