Kingdom of Germany?

I've been reading up on the Middle Ages, which is an area of little expertise for me. Recently, I discovered the Kingdom of Germany on Wikipedia; however, I am a bit confused on the topic, which is why I have come to you, AH.com, to answer my questions. Here are said questions:

-Was the Kingdom of Germany a politically centrallized entity, or could it have the potential to become one (a la France)?

-What was the relation between the Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire?

-When and why did the Kingdom of Germany cease to exist as a political entity?

I am totally clueless on the Middle Ages and how they worked, so if anyone would help clarify things for me, that would be great. Thanks in advance!
 
the Kingdom of Germany, like The Kingdom of Italy where titles that were apart of the Holy Roman Empire. As far as I know these titles could only pass to whoever was Emperor, and as a result the Kingdom had no power on it's own but was a title. the Kingdom of Germany as a title ended when Francis II dissolved the HRE.
 
1: No. Could it have become one? Yes.

2: As stated by BBAdolato, it was one of the titles of the Emperor - or rather, the man who became Emperor was the man elected as King of Germany first.

3: Didn't Francis II (the Emperor of the time) dissolve the empire, not Napoleon?
 
i edited that, although it did get dissolved as consequence of the Napoleonic wars, so I wasn't that far off

Yeah. Just a matter of detail.

I'm not sure if it (the Kingdom of Germany) was formally dissolved, or if it fell by the wayside with the rest of the imperial stuff.
 
If Cnut the Great or an alternate version of Cnut the Great somehow brought the the Holy Roman Empire to its knees (it would probably have to be attacked by another nation at the same time), could he usurp the Kingdom of Germany? Or is that too far-fetched?
 
If Cnut the Great or an alternate version of Cnut the Great somehow brought the the Holy Roman Empire to its knees (it would probably have to be attacked by another nation at the same time), could he usurp the Kingdom of Germany? Or is that too far-fetched?

I wouldn't want to say an absolute no off the top of my head, but I'm leaning towards far fetched.

Germany is a lot bigger than England.
 
I'd say far-fetched, Canute had England,Denmark,Norway and some of Sweden on his plate, going for anymore seems like lunacy. The only way you could have an actual Kingdom of Germany, would be to have the HRE break apart or not be formed. Instead of having several Kingdoms subordinate to an Empire, there could just be those several kingdoms, although what happens afterwards could lead to a rather unrecognizable world as we know it.
 
I wouldn't want to say an absolute no off the top of my head, but I'm leaning towards far fetched.

Germany is a lot bigger than England.

And even the rest of his empire wouldn't be enough, the HRE was the undisputed most powerful nation in Europe (bar the Byzantines who get a giant asterisk for the majority of their territory being anatolian).
 
Ok, I've done some research, and it seems to me that the Kingdom of Germany may have been able to survive on its own had Otto II not expanded into Italy (if he died, it seems likely that the Kingdom would break up between the various duchies). Thoughts, everyone?

By the way, what is a march/mark, and what is the role of a Margrave/Marquess/whatever that rules over it? Wikipedia's explanation isn't exactly fitting for me.
 
Ok, I've done some research, and it seems to me that the Kingdom of Germany may have been able to survive on its own had Otto II not expanded into Italy (if he died, it seems likely that the Kingdom would break up between the various duchies). Thoughts, everyone?

By the way, what is a march/mark, and what is the role of a Margrave/Marquess/whatever that rules over it? Wikipedia's explanation isn't exactly fitting for me.

It's possible, sure.

Why Otto would avoid expanding into Italy is a question that needs to be asked, however.

And what's unfitting about the explanation?
 
It's possible, sure.

Why Otto would avoid expanding into Italy is a question that needs to be asked, however.

And what's unfitting about the explanation?

I would imagine that if Lothair II's widow acually ended up marrying Adalbert, then Otto would never have any reason to invade Italy, as he would have no access to the throne. Of course, I likely have no idea what I'm talking about.

The explanation just doesn't fit what I'm trying to understand. Maybe it is, and I'm just not recognizing it. Anyway, what I'm attempting to research are the marks that were located by the Eastern coast of the Elbe; how long they had been there, why they weren't expanded, and their roles compared to the land owned by typical German nobles as opposed to Margraves.
 
By the way, what is a march/mark, and what is the role of a Margrave/Marquess/whatever that rules over it? Wikipedia's explanation isn't exactly fitting for me.

It's part of an empire that's on the border. You need to remember in medieval times, you often didn't get state societies bumping right up against each other as you do today. Thus the border is actually more of a frontier, where criminals could raid your kingdom and then escape beyond control of your authority. To address this, monarchs would grant a march to a margrave as a sort of military governor, as these areas needed much more active supervision than the more civilised parts of the realm. They would be responsible for catching criminals and guarding against military invasion.
 
It's part of an empire that's on the border. You need to remember in medieval times, you often didn't get state societies bumping right up against each other as you do today. Thus the border is actually more of a frontier, where criminals could raid your kingdom and then escape beyond control of your authority. To address this, monarchs would grant a march to a margrave as a sort of military governor, as these areas needed much more active supervision than the more civilised parts of the realm. They would be responsible for catching criminals and guarding against military invasion.

So were the marches defined areas with defined borders that had a higher tendency to crime & foreign invasion, or were they just vague claims over which a Margrave/Marquess/etc had to patrol? If the latter, then where did the ruler live? And what did it take to have marches turn into regular territories with defined borders?
 
So were the marches defined areas with defined borders that had a higher tendency to crime & foreign invasion, or were they just vague claims over which a Margrave/Marquess/etc had to patrol? If the latter, then where did the ruler live? And what did it take to have marches turn into regular territories with defined borders?

Both. Sometimes you had a march that was the limit to which a state would naturally expand or had a very convenient natural border, other times you had a state claiming much more land than it could actually control and so in turn the Margrave's ability to rule was limited.

I'd imagine that marches became more 'regular' as more of a state and surrounding territories became more settled. After that a Margrave simply became one title higher than Count in feudal rankings, even if their territories' martial differences became nonexistent.
 
The security of a march would often change with time. So it would start off as a wild territory that the monarch claimed because he'd won a battle there, but as the margrave was successful he would pacify the place. Generally formal borders would exist on someone's map, even if they were just claims and didn't reflect the on the ground reality.

It's worth also mentioning that the position of margrave could be attractive because there would often be opportunities to expand it further as he conquered land in the name of the monarch, which was something other fiefdoms could not do. Often a margrave could then vassalise this newly acquired land to more minor nobles, enhancing his own standing.
 
Actually the margraviates in their role to protect the border (originally) had special privileges, which weren't allowed to duchies. For instance a margrave the possibility to also demand (financial) contributions from the church within their margraviate, something dukes weren't allowed to do (due to imperial/royal protection of the church).
In fact when the Babenberger margrave of Austria were promoted to duke of Austria, they were explicitly allowed to also keep their margravial privileges (something very important to them; now they were allowed ducal & margravial privileges).
 
Holy Roman Empire and Germany, early period

The rules were different in the first century or so of the Holy Roman Empire than they were later.

After the death of HRE Louis I in 840, the empire was divided, with one son (Charles the Bald) becoming king of France, a different son (Louis the German) becoming king of Germany, and a third son (Lothair I) becoming emperor and ruling a long middle kingdom encompassing Italy and a stretch of territory between France and Germany, all the way to the North Sea. There was a civil war between them until 843, but this is how it panned out.

From 840, the king of Germany was not necessarily the same person as the Holy Roman Emperor (although it was on occasion) and this was true until about 962.

That year the German king, Otto I, took over Italy and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, eliminating all Italian claimants to the imperial and Italian titles. From that point on, the king of Germany and the Holy Roman Emperor were the same person. The kingdom of France was outside the Holy Roman Empire by then, but both the German and middle kingdoms were in it.
 
Top