So what's the consensus about the HRE? I mean THE HRE! Does Otto I found it, or is he in a long line of actual HRE Emperors? What was Otto's empire called? The confusing behemoth must be conquered!
Whose Crown is it Anyways? A Discussion on the HRE and where it Begins
- Thread starter Pressedflowers
- Start date
Philippe le Bel
Banned
What. Otto's HRE was distinct from Charlemagne's, if that's what you're asking.
Was it the same imperial title given by the pope to both Charlemagne and Charles the Fat, though? I am approaching the issue from a none histological standpoint.
Philippe le Bel
Banned
I can't say about the title, but the state itself was clearly different. Centralized control over Italy and Germany was almost nonexistent, and even in France the king was weaker than most of his vassals, "greatest among equals" and only powerful insofar as he held spiritual power as the leader and protector of Christianity in France. The situation had degraded by the 10th century that Otto I, a duke in northern Germany, could consolidate power over his neighbors and get the Pope to crown him Holy Roman Emperor. Clearly a different form of state and state-building.
Skallagrim
Banned
The HRE is just an altered and renamed incarnation of Charlemagne's empire. Due to Franconian law, the inheritance got split up, and only one heir could get the imperial title. At that point, the Carolingian Empire ceases to exist as such, but the exact same imperial title carried over into one of its successors remains the same title. It's the "Carolingian" bit that got changed, but the "Empire" was there still. So this is a ship of Theseus thing. I say the empire we're talking about was founded on Christmas Day, 800 AD. Incidentally, among the people who agree with me on this are all Emperors of the HRE ever. If you claim that Otto started the HRE, you're defending a claim which neither he nor any of the people who inherited his crown ever made.
Indeed, I understand that the two are completely different in structure. I ask about the title, which is how I colour my maps, because on Wiki, Beranger I, is titled Holy Roman Emperor. I don't know if that's the actual title that Berengar and Otto were given. In terms of how I draw up feudal Europe, it is based on title, as that was the mainstay for political interaction internationally and interpersonally.
Philippe le Bel
Banned
But there was a ~60 year gap at this time (and other gaps later) in which nobody was emperor, even though a King of the Germans existed. I see your point but basically the HRE as such fell apart and it was up to Henry the Fowler and then his son Otto I to basically forge a new state by outmaneuvering their neighbors and then more far-ranging lords.
As for claims and such, the Julii Caesares claimed to be descended from Venus but that doesn't make it so
No, I see your point there too and the title pretty much existed throughout despite the gap. The state itself can sure be called the same thing but it must be realized that its creation and the mechanism through which it worked is different from the state that Charlemagne and his descendants ruled.
The HRE state as Otto's 13thC successors would call it certainly started with Otto.
Whether his imperial title can be considered different to Charlemagne's is debatable but the Roman Church treated it the same.
Whether his imperial title can be considered different to Charlemagne's is debatable but the Roman Church treated it the same.
Philippe le Bel
Banned
Oh, then I agree with Skallagrim. The title is the same, you should color them the same if you want.
And I am taking the stance from the church, who gave these titles and recognised them.
However that is for the western feudal systems, specifically those under the sway of the Most Catholic Church. This is not the same for the rest of the world.
Oh @Skallagrim , I am using your North Rome colour for the Empire, whomever is it's helmsmen, for my maps. What I am wondering is that for post Charles the Fat HRE, that the North Rome colour be limited to Italy, and an outline drawn around the former empire, denoting that by that time, the imperial rule was theoretical beyond Italy, as it seems to be, from browsing through Wiki.
Skallagrim
Banned
For claims and theoretical control, I'd use that exact same method, yeah. Just an outline in the colour of the state in question. Incidentally, in SUCK I have a Carolingian colour, an HRE colour and a North Rome colour. Depending on what you like and how you perceive the empire in question, I consider all of these to be legitimate for the purpose. (I often refer to my old professor, who stauchly insisted that Rome didn't fall until 1806. To him, the Empire founded by Augustus was in a very critical sense the same thing as the one that Napoleon dissolved. I would not go that far, but it's a view that some quite serious people defend.)
That is fascinating claim! My stance is that as John Romer says, "Rome didn't fall, it just became poorer, thus Rome came home to the East." However that claim by your professor is a very interesting one. The most striking part of that assertion is that for the Romans (Byzantines) the view of the state, the lauded res publica, never ceased, which is the most defining feature of both the US and the Empire of the Romans. I would challenge your professor's claim with how that falls in with feudalism, in which the rulers viewed the state as a personal estate, rather than a stewards.
I thought about using the Carolingian colour, but i wanted to specifically denote the that this was a new empire.