Q: When did France stop to consider itself part of the HRE?

According to different sources, after the split of the Carolingian Empire in Verdun (843), the widespread concept of Holy Roman Empire was not divided and all the successor entities (including some peripheral ones, like Benevento) considered itself part of the Holy Roman Empire, even if they were not depending on the effective rule of the Holy Roman Emperor.

The concept of the 'Empire' included different political entities for some time until it was finally reduced to the 'real' territory under effective rule of the Emperor. This is clear to me, but I am not sure when the non-HRE entities ceased to considered themselves part of the Empire, specially (as it was the most important) West Francia/France.

Some sources claim that this consideration ceased with the Capetians (West Francia becomes France and his common past with the HRE is overcame), but others claim that this consideration lasted for a couple of centuries, and was still common during the First Crusade.

It is also interesting the confusion regarding if the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Kingdom of Asturias also shared that concept, even if they were never ruled by the Carolingians.
 
Well the Carolingian Empire wasn't the HRE.
Charlemagne was labelled the ruler of the Western Roman Empire despite not actually ruling all the lands that used to come under it - including Iberia and southern Britain.
The HRE was formed out of East Francia and Lombardy, later adding the Arelat through inheritance.
This is a bit like a further division of the Roman Empire and allows places like West Francia to consider themselves part of the Roman Empire but not the HRE.
 
After Verdun, it was the king of Middle Francia/Lotharingia that held the HRE title, with the other Karling kingdoms nominally under his authority but at the same time not. This continued until Charles the Fat died in 888. His death and the coup two months before (by his nephew) split the Empire (which had briefly reunited under him) for good, and while HREmperors were crowned a bit until Berengar's death in 924, I think it was when Charles died that the other kings started ignoring Lotharingia. Certainly after 924 no-one in France acknowledged the Germans' authority.

No way did France post-987 consider itself part of the HRE.

- BNC
 
France under the Capetians certainly did not think being part of the Empire, but it took some centuries for the jurists to construct the legal doctrine of the King being equal to the Emperor (13th c.). The sentence "The King is Emperor in his Kingdom" meant at first the Emperor had no right in France, but from the 15th c., it also meant the King of France had the same prerogatives as the Emperor, both the HRE and the Roman Emperor from the Justinian Code.

As usual, fact precedes law. It is the same in Catalonia, where the count was de facto independent from France since the 10th c., but the name of the French King is still used in official documents until the early 12th c. and the independence formally recognized in 1258.
 
France under the Capetians certainly did not think being part of the Empire, but it took some centuries for the jurists to construct the legal doctrine of the King being equal to the Emperor (13th c.). The sentence "The King is Emperor in his Kingdom" meant at first the Emperor had no right in France, but from the 15th c., it also meant the King of France had the same prerogatives as the Emperor, both the HRE and the Roman Emperor from the Justinian Code.

As usual, fact precedes law. It is the same in Catalonia, where the count was de facto independent from France since the 10th c., but the name of the French King is still used in official documents until the early 12th c. and the independence formally recognized in 1258.

But my doubt is (let see a practical example): imagine that Otto III, who had a strong concept of what his Empire should be/mean, would have lived for a longer time and would have eventually decided to go to Paris and tried to assert his Imperial overlordship (even if simply symbolically) over the Capetian kingdom of France. Would Otto III have been in his own proper right as HRE or it would have caused a war with Capetian France?
 
But my doubt is (let see a practical example): imagine that Otto III, who had a strong concept of what his Empire should be/mean, would have lived for a longer time and would have eventually decided to go to Paris and tried to assert his Imperial overlordship (even if simply symbolically) over the Capetian kingdom of France. Would Otto III have been in his own proper right as HRE or it would have caused a war with Capetian France?
That would depend how successful he is.
If he's very successful then jurists would recognise the HRE as a continuation of the WRE, if not then the HRE is considered just a new creation with territorial authority only within its then lands.
Look at Brittany and the arguments as to whether it was part of the Kingdom of France or not.
 
I think terminology is a major problem here. There is "the emperor," a person, and then there is "the empire," a geographical construct. Ask a late 10th century Frenchman if there is an emperor, and his answer would be "yes" - his name is Otto. Ask him where the empire is, however, and I suspect you would meet with some confusion. The medieval imperium was, at least in its early formulation, something universal, and medieval sovereignty was not black and white with hard lines. Was late 10th century Burgundy within "the empire," for instance? At that point it still has its own king, after all, and while he was obviously within the empire's sphere of influence, the status of his kingdom was more of a protectorate of the empire than a vassal properly so called. Poland, too, recognized imperial suzerainty around this time - was Poland part of "the empire?" If so, when did it cease to be?

What exactly it meant to be "emperor" was being negotiated continually throughout this period. Did it mean you could appoint the dukes of Germany as you pleased? Some of Otto's dukes thought not, but he argued otherwise through force of arms. (Then again, perhaps that was a question of Otto's capacity as King of Germany as opposed to his capacity as Emperor.) Did it mean you were superior to the pope and could confirm candidates to that seat? Yes, until it didn't. Did it give you effective suzerainty over other independent kingdoms? Yes, at least briefly, in the case of Denmark, Hungary, and Poland, but not so much in the case of France.

In a broad, spiritual sense, it was accepted that the emperor was at the summit of Christendom (well, Latin Christendom), and in that sense had a very broad "overlordship." To what extent that represented real power, however, as opposed to mere ceremonial or spiritual precedence, however, depended on where (and when) you were.

Would Otto III have been in his own proper right as HRE or it would have caused a war with Capetian France?

This may be the idea time to use the phrase "might makes right" - because it does. What the imperial title gives to Otto by right is that which he has the will and power to compel.
 
Last edited:
But my doubt is (let see a practical example): imagine that Otto III, who had a strong concept of what his Empire should be/mean, would have lived for a longer time and would have eventually decided to go to Paris and tried to assert his Imperial overlordship (even if simply symbolically) over the Capetian kingdom of France. Would Otto III have been in his own proper right as HRE or it would have caused a war with Capetian France?

King Robert II's ambitions were to submit his northern french vassals. He had some successes, like in Bourgogne, and failiures, like in Blois. If the Emperor could have help him in a crisis, he would probably acknowledge his authority as head of the Christianity, without releasing any actual power to him. The Emperor would not have access to Regalia in France. If he tried, a conflict is unavoidable. The turning point is the attitude of the bishops : in an augustinian (or isidorian) perspective, they considered the King as protector of the Church. Both Otto in Germany and Robert in France heavily relied on them. If the papacy legitimized the position of the Emperor as sole protector of the Church, the King's position would be less solid. But even when he was at odds with the Pope, Robert was supported by most of the french bishops.
 
Just pointing out that François Ier tried to get elected as Emperor in the XVIth century

Otherwise, this is a great discussion to read
 
So to the simple question 'Do you live in the (Holy) Roman Empire?' , the answer in the 11th century from a German, French, Pole, Hungarian, Italian, North-Iberian, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Dane or Christian Swedish would have been always 'Yes'?

(In the sense they considered themselves subdit of a (Latin) Christian monarch, and thus, of the Holy Roman Emperor)
 
So to the simple question 'Do you live in the (Holy) Roman Empire?' , the answer in the 11th century from a German, French, Pole, Hungarian, Italian, North-Iberian, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Dane or Christian Swedish would have been always 'Yes'?

(In the sense they considered themselves subdit of a (Latin) Christian monarch, and thus, of the Holy Roman Emperor)

No, as Carp wrote, imperium did not equate with empire. The geographical distinctions of old kingdoms (Francia, Germania, Italia, but also Aquitania or Burgundia) were far more efficient. The political link was the feudal one (vassal to the count of X, the duke of Z, himself vassal to the King of France, under the very loose overlordship of the emperor), but as feudal law stipulates "the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal", meaning even if your king submit to the Emperor, your prime fidelity is to your lord. Ecclesiastical commentators judged severely the counts who rebelled against the French Kings, but applauded the Viscounts who took their side. They served their lord, as they should always do, even if said lord is himself a rebel. So, if you were a local noble in Normandy, vassal to a more powerful lord, himself vassal to the Count of Mortain, himself vassal to the Duke of Normandy, himself vassal to the King of France, himself more or less acknowledging the Emperor, your link to the reality of imperium was so distant it did not create any special relation with the "Empire". If you were a local noble in Germania, vassal to a bishop named by the Emperor, said Emperor owning regalia in the nearest city and with no other feudal superior, you would feel much more "imperial" (even if you would say "I live in Germania" and not "in the Empire").
 
Emperor Otto around 948 involved himself in the dispute of who was the legitimate ruler of West Francia, with the understanding that as Emperor that was his universal right. The status of the Emperor was more like the status of the Pope in being universal in the 10th century; and probably more universal given that the Pope during this time was more provincial and a puppet of the local magnates in central Italy and the powers of Rome; the Emperor however being on the move and holding court throughout Germany and northern Italy and having wider ranging geopolitical power.
 
Emperor Otto around 948 involved himself in the dispute of who was the legitimate ruler of West Francia, with the understanding that as Emperor that was his universal right. The status of the Emperor was more like the status of the Pope in being universal in the 10th century; and probably more universal given that the Pope during this time was more provincial and a puppet of the local magnates in central Italy and the powers of Rome; the Emperor however being on the move and holding court throughout Germany and northern Italy and having wider ranging geopolitical power.

Before the extinction of the Carolingians, the Emperor was much more active in West Francia affairs, given the succession conflicts. After Hugh Capet, his interventions were on another scale.
 
Carp's response basically sums it up and I think a lot of it has to do with people misunderstanding the nature of office of Emperor of the Romans/Holy Roman Emperor/Roman Emperor
 
Top