Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 2

message: Someone's added a coat of arms to the article.  However, I believe that they are in fact either personal to the emperor (and thus belong at Holy Roman Emperor), or more likely are just for the Habsburg monarchy.  Can anyone either confirm or contradict this?  Silverhelm 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: Why does the article as-is make no mention of the Ottoman Empire, who was probably the biggest military/economic opponent of the HRE in the 16th and early 17 c., when both were at their largest and most powerful points.  Just a suggestion for possible improvement. - unsigned
:The Habsburg Empire is not the Holy Roman Empire.  The latter was most certainly not at its most powerful point in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some mention of the Turkish threat in the 16th century would likely be appropriate, though. john k 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire 

message: Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)  02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News: [[Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board|German Wiki Notice Board]] 

message: Is it possible to resize all of them to an equal level?
I can't help looking at the page, as it is now, it seems a bit messy. 
The Austrian box is that tiny, then we see this huge box of the Netherlands and then at the bottom a normal-sized German box. Sirupe 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries' timeline boxes 

message: If there is a Dutch infobox, there would have to be a French, a Czech, a Italian, a Swiss and maybe a Polish infobox, too. 84.187.110.107 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does there have to be a Dutch History box? 

message: Quote: 
 Liechtenstein is thus the last independent state in Europe which can  
 claim an element of continuity from the Holy Roman Empire.
Is this true? Why don't Luxembourg and Austria count? Chl 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liechtenstein

message: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HRR_10Jh.jpg
I tried and failed Foreigner 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is a bit anachronistic though... it uses a modern map. Especially the Netherlands have changed considerably: Flevoland was created in the 20th century, just like the Delta Works. Both can be seen on the map, unlike, strangely, some of the Wadden islands. Junes 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to insert this picture from commons?

message: :The Holy Roman Empire was a mainly Central European conglomeration of countries in the Middle Ages, also known as The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, in the 16th century, and the early modern period. It was at one point East Francia, the eastern divide of the Frankish Empire, with its partition in the Treaty of Verdun, in 843. It, offspring of Charlemagne, was Rome's successor for nearly a millennium as the Kingdom of Germany, until its dissolution, in 1806, at the command of Napoleon. By the 18th century, it consisted of most of Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Belgium, large parts of Poland, France and Italy, as well as small parts of the Netherlands, and Croatia. It was at it's peak consisting of all of the Netherlands, as well as Switzerland. In the 18th century, with the Empire already in decline, Voltaire famously commented disparaginly on its nomenclature, and the vanity of it's imperiousness, as he stated, the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
::I think lands is somewhat better than countries since "countries" creates ambiguities for modern readers and lands is closer to German Land.
::"It was at one point East Francia":  It wouldn't have been true at any stage that the Holy Roman Empire was Eastern Francia.  The HRE was the East Frankish successor state.
::"Offsping of Charlemagne" is perhaps a little poetic, and in any case inaccurate, since Charlemagne's initiative decades earlier didn't have a direct impact on the formation of the Reich as a territorial entity.
::"At the command of" - It's hard to succinctly encapsulate the process of the Empire's official dissolution.  Napoleon formed the German Confederation as a rival and replacement for the Habsburg-dominated Empire, but did he actually order its dissolution?  What's the best phrasing here, anyone?
::Is Alsace-Lorraine a large part of France? The point is debatable.  I would argue the earlier version is a better way of describing the territories of the Reich.  Similar things can be said about "it was at it's peak consisting of" - which could be phrased somewhat better. You also removed "still", which is a good illustrative word showing that the Imperial realm varied over time, and was in decline by the 18th century.
::"And the vanity of it's imperiousness" - please note that it's is not a possessive in Standard written English. This goes into expressing an opinion rather than simply commenting on what Voltaire was trying to say.  Wasn't the earlier phrasing better?
Slac speak up! 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points are well put. I always get annoyed with 'it's' being the wrong way for 'it' to possess, although I realise its plural, 'its', is non existant, but, 'its', is, 'it is', its confusions confound me. I will try to consider your comments, although I kind of had my heart set on it before, maybe I can find a better way for it to be still.
WikieWikieWikie 09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro paragraph

message: :I thought a large part of France meant eastern France, rather than Alsace and Lorraine, as it says in the Character of the Empire. I see now it was only early on eartern France was part of the Empire, although it looks like this early stage, it's peak, means a restructure of the lead up to the 18th century stage description might be a good idea.
::Franche Comté was part of the Empire until 1678, as was most of what is now Nord department.  Artois was in the Empire until 1659.  Montbéliard and some other places in Alsace remained imperial until the Revolution. john k 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character of the Empire

message: The following header was removed twice from this article:
:This page is about the Germanic empire. For the ancient empire centred on Rome, see Roman Empire.
Suppose we'd be better off discussing this in the Talk page than endlessly going back and forth on it in the edit history.  Personally, I feel the link should be restored.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who reached this article from another related article would be curious about the distinction between the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire.  While it may be true that "nobody types in "Holy Roman Empire" thinking of ancient Rome" (to quote User:Neutrality), it is certainly plausable that someone learning of the Holy Roman Empire for the first timem would be confused, and utilize the link.  I'm reinserting it, and believe it should stay put. MrZaiustalk 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  A casual reader, unfamiliar with history, would likely assume that "Holy Roman Empire" was just another way of referring to the Empire of antiquity. Slac speak up! 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I've never known anyone confuse the HRE (or embyonic HRE) with the ancient Roman Empire. Norvo 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer a parenthetical remark ini the introduction. john k 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could simply mention there the fact that the HRE was intended (or at least thought of) as a resurrection of the Western Roman Empire. As that is an important fact, I don't think it would sit badly at a prominent place in the introduction, and having that link handy will make it obvious to anyone that there are at least two different Roman Empires at play. (I do agree that the disambiguation header should only be used if people are likely to type in the wrong title, which clearly is not the case here.) -- Jao 08:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Empire link in header

message: Please spare a thought for ordinary users. In the early part of the article the date of foundation of the HRE is assumed to be 843,  with hints that it goes back to 800. (843 is used for working how long the empire lasted). Then, much later, the article adopts the date usually given by German and Italian historians, namely 962. Even by early medieval standards that's a very substantial gap indeed. Surely, users are entitled to consistency on this within the article. I think they are also entitled to be told the date of the very first known use in writing of the title Sacrum Imperium Romanum. I've heard that this title dates from about 1254, in which case comment on the gap of over 400 years is needed. There is a related issue that merits at least a short paragraph: the mythologization of this imperial outfit. I suspect it may be the element of mythology that has led to attempts to push the date of foundation far back into the mists of time.  Norvo 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the succinct explanations. (I was being deliberately provocative). How about including a paragraph about the dates for the benefit of people who aren't experts? For many it is very confusing to read in some places that Charlemagne was crowned HR Emperor in 800 and then to read in another encyclopedia that Otto I was the first HR Emperor. I imagine many people consult encyclopedias partly in the hope of finding an explanation to such questions. Norvo 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A paragraph would be helpful, certainly.  I'll try to do it when I get around to it, but that might not happen, given my usual followthrough, so feel free to give it a try yourself - if you gave it a go, I'd definitely look it over and edit it. john k 21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates and "demythologization" 

message: Hello to anyone watching this page.  Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries#A Holy Roman Empire sub-project?, I've proposed the idea of a wikiproject relating specifically to the Holy Roman Empire.  I thought people with this page on their watchlist might be interested.  I think that with a little work and co-ordination, it'd be possible to make wikipedia's coverage of this subject really excellent. john k 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A page has now been set up on WP Former Countries for such a subproject - here. The page is empty at the moment (the project pages are undergoing a bit of a cleanup at the moment, so i'm a bit busy), but there is now a talk page for this subproject. All welcome! - 52 Pickup 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Holy Roman Empire wikiproject? 

message: I felt bad after reverting the anon edit, but I thought it made fairly major changes in the intro, which warrant further investigation.
#It shifted the claim that the Empire began in 843 to beginning on Christmas Day, 800.  Is there really a scholarly consensus on this issue?  The question of "origins" and different starting dates has, it seems, plagued this article for a while. Maybe we need to look at how the article addresses it and craft a better summary.
#It started talking about the translatio imperii quite early.   As with the first point, I think the pre-Renaissance attitude of contemporaries bears more investigation at this point. Was it universally believed that the Empire was authentically Roman? On a related note, yes it is true that many barbarian successor states viewed themselves as the upholders and successors of Roman rule (e.g. the Visigoths.)  However, none of these states had their ruler crowned Imperator Augustus - a big, big deal in the medieval mindset.
Was I off-base in reverting? Does anyone care to give a second opinion? Slac speak up! 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent revert

message: Apparently someone has vandalized the page. Somewhat crude exclamations (...BALLS...DOUCHE...) have been randomly inserted between parts of sentences, and should be removed.
I tried to edit them out myself, but despite them clealy being on the page, I couldn't find them in the edit screen.
Hi.  These edits have been removed - you're looking at an out-of-date version of the page.  Try purging your cache. Slac speak up! 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: beginning of the "Holy" part of the title

message: Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae is absolutely correct, but the translation with this "word accumulation"  Heiliges Römischen Reiche des Deutscher Nation is just horrible. It should be more like Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation. This way it would be grammatically correct.
Hoika 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin German Translation 

message: The distinction between this article and the "Carolingian Empire" article is unclear. I believe the authors' intent was to say that "Carolingian Empire" refers to a sub-period of the "Holy Roman Empire". One could also argue that the Holy Roman Empire succeeded the Carolingian Empire. I would argue the former is a better nomenclature.
The point is that the articles need to clearly disambiguate this one way or the other (i.e. decide how Wikipedia is going to use these terms and then modify the articles to clearly explain the nomenclature). The way they are right now it would be confusing to the novice as to whether these were two co-existent empires or what precisely is meant.
--Mcorazao 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation with Carolingian Empire 

message: I reverted the addition of a tag line pointing to the article Roman German hybrid for these reasons: 
# The tag had a capitalization error ("german"). 
# The article it linked to is of dubious relevance. 
# The article it linked to is very poorly edited and unsourced. 
-- Rob C (Alarob) 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roman German hybrid"