Talk:Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)

message: Due to lack of controversy and straight-forwardness on the move of 
Kingdom of Italy (Medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval), I did the bold thing... --Serge 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Medieval) -> (medieval)... Done

message: Is what this article, or atleast the Lombard info should be called. These are not "Kings of Italy", they're "Kings of the Lombards". Take for example Alboin, Britannica has him located at "Alboin (king of Lombardy)". This well researched map on the Historical states of Italy calls it the "Kingdom of Lombardy". In the letters from Popes they were addressed as "Kings of Lombardy", as this source attests. - Gennarous (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingdom of Lombardy

message: :Any additional comments:
It may be worth dividing this article into the Lombard kingdom and Kingdom of Italy (medieval). The Carolingian kingdom had a separate, if usually nominal, existence from the Lombard state (if that's the right word).  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with that is that the distinction is arbitrary. Even in the late Middle Ages the crown the emperors used as kings of Italy was the Iron Crown and Charlemagne adopted, initially, the Lombard title. We do need a separate article for the Lombard kingdom, but simply dividing it off of this article seems unwise. Better to keep a short section with a main article hatnote. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not importantly arbitrary. The Lombard crown was united with the Frankish/Imperial crown during the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis, the Italian crown was split off afterwards. The divide between them must be in that period. But writing a separate article and making this section into a summary will get us much the same place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pepin? Bernard? Kings of the Lombards or of Italy? Srnec (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I may have oversimplified. But did they wear the Iron Crown? Did they govern by Lombard law? If not, why not call them Kings of Italy, as we do? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying that any dividing line between Lombard/medieval is arbitrary and therefore I am opposed to separating them completely, but subarticles are fine. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Giovanni Tabacco (1989), The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy, Chris Wickham (1990), Early Medieval Italy, and Jan Hallenbeck (1982), Pavia and Rome, call the Lombard kingdom a "Kingdom of Italy". Srnec (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Kingdom of Italy" is widely employed by historians but never existed. The only historical name was "Kingdom of Lombards" --Little bishop (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for calling the Lombard kingdom a "Kingdom of Italy" 

message: Was the Kingdom of Sicily and/or Naples considered to be legally outside the Kingdom of Italy and/or the Holy Roman Empire, even when the Kings of Sicily and/or Naples were also Holy Roman Emperors (e.g., Frederick II, Charles V)? --Jfruh (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was, as seen by the use of the double titulature King of Sicily and Italy by Frederick II. The kingdom of Sicily was also not administrated within the Empire - there may have been exceptions for the parts that recognized Carolingian suzerainety at some point (Capua, Benevento and Salerno IIRC). 76.124.106.137 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Italy 

message: I'm not sure that the map (which appears to be in Italian) is really accurate.  It's true that the area in blue was ruled by the Lombards; but my understanding is that the Duchies of Bevento and Spoleto -- the whole area south of of Rome-Ravenna corridor -- never acknowledged the overlordship of the Lombard kings in Pavia, and thus can't be considered part of the "Kingdom of Italy" discussed here.  Am I wrong? --Jfruh (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I'm not completely certain of the precise status of those duchies.  Even if they were, I think it's still a bad map, since I'd say that the "Medieval Kingdom of Italy" applies much more to the post-Frankish period than it does to the Lombard Kingdom.  A map depicting its extent in the High Middle Ages would seem much more sensible to me. john k (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map -- should the southern areas be blue? 

message: This article appears to be the victim of an ongoing move war. The above requested move discussions show a preference for the disambiguator (medieval), but those discussions are old and consensus can change. Still, it seems to me that Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is the most stable title for this article, and it should probably remain at that title until a consensus can be reached for moving to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) or some other title.
*05:33, 3 August 2013 Srnec (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) over redirect (the kingdom survived into the modern era)
*08:35, 2 August 2013 Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (imperial) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval) over redirect (The term "medieval" is better because when Italy was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire it lost "de facto" its independence (during the Franks) and after the year 1000 it was already divided in s)
*01:57, 5 July 2013 Srnec (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) (actual scope: see the great Spanish article)
*16:59, 10 July 2012 Cuchullain (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per move request at Talk:Kingdom of Italy)
*08:46, 28 June 2012 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect (Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=498732719#movereq-Kingdom_of_Italy)&wpMovetalk=1)
*03:17, 20 February 2009 Gaugan (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to 'ħ(split)A(split)G(split)G(split)E(split)R? (edit summary removed)
*02:45, 20 February 2009 Giovanni Rossi (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to 'ħ(split)A(split)G(split)G(split)E(split) R? (edit summary removed)
*05:01, 5 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval)(redirects) (get this clutter out from under incoming move)
*16:20, 4 July 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Lombards Kingdom
*06:38, 9 June 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy over redirect
*17:30, 8 June 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy
*07:17, 2 March 2007 Domino theory (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)
Please feel free to open a move request to discuss. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent moves 

message: In the Middle Ages, the HRE was divided into three component kingdoms. Italy and Arles belonged to the elected king of Germany by right, as did the imperium, which was exercised after a papal coronation. Bohemia was a separate electoral crown entirely, a vassal of the king/emperor of Germany. It was not one of the basic divisions of the empire but a state within it, like Saxony, Bavaria or Milan. It should not be lumped in with the Italy, Germany and Arles/Burgundy. And in fact, after 1 January 1806 the Empire had two other kingdoms within it (Bavaria and Württemberg) on a par with Bohemia, although this only lasted six months. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Kingdom of Bohemia was not like Electorate of Saxony, Electorate of Bavaria or Milan. Saxony and Bavaria were electorates of Kingdom of Germany and Milan was a part of Kingdom of Italy. Kingdom of Bohemia was neither a part of Kingdom of Germany, nor Italy, nor Burgundy. Using "vassal" is completely incorrect and POV in this context and as Italy and Arles belonged to the elected king of Germany by right, and Bohemia was a separate electoral crown entirely, Bohemia is more likely to stand as a basic division unit of the Empire with Germany, than Italy and Burgundy theoretically would, as the latter two didin't even have their own kings. What are basic division units of the Holy Roman Empire is not up to someone editor's will. It is very clear that the Empire had 4 kingdoms for most of its history even though Italy and Burgundy were a subject to the Kingdom of Germany. Terms like "not be lumped" are POV and removing one of four kingdoms of the empire because of its higher autonomy is nonsense.--Der Golem (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For Bohemia as a vassal, see Jaroslav Pánek's contribution to The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806: A European Perspective. For the medieval theory of the three "blocks of territories" (Germany, Italy and Burgundy), see Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, p. 20. The editor who is trying to impose his will here is you. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you just pick out the sources that support your version. Good luck.--Der Golem (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You, on the other hand, haven't picked out any sources, so Srnec seems to have the advantage. john k (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemia 

message: The introduction refers to 'the so-called "Empire of the Romans" ', an entity which is undefined. There is no Wikipedia article with this title. Is what is meant here the entity implied by the coronation of Charlemagne as 'Emperor of the Romans' (also mentioned in the introduction)? Is this the 'Holy Roman Empire'? If not, how does it differ?Clivemacd (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Empire of the Romans" is a translation of imperium romanorum and is synonymous with "Roman Empire" and "Holy Roman Empire". The lead says "crown ... of the so-called 'Empire of the Romans'" after introducing Charlemagne's coronation as "Emperor of the Romans". Is it not clear that this is the same crown? I have reworded somewhat. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire of the Romans 

message: In the long tradition of people attributing things to the Peace of Westphalia that it did not say, somebody last year sneaked in a claim that the Peace of Westphalia formally ended the existence of the Kingdom of Italy. This is not true in any sense. The Peace of Westphalia did not say anything about the Kingdom of Italy, and whatever Imperial rights existed in the "imperial" parts of Italy continued to exist in much the same way both before and after 1648. So please don't add that back in. john k (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westphalia 

message: You wrote: . You are correct about Otto, wrong about 1648 (see the section immediately above) and wrong about Philip II, who was imperial vicar in (imperial) Italy. The Treaty of Lunéville (1801) confirmed the Treaty of Campo Formio (1797) by which the emperor had renounced his rights in Italy in favour of the Cisalpine Republic (see here). Srnec (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits