Holy Roman Empire

[Commissar]

Why did the germanic kingdoms unite under the roman name, especially since the eastern empire still remained?

This confuses me. from their history, they were not very holy, either. does it have more to do with the roman catholic church? someone shed some light, please.

edit: also, while im in here making a topic, i was wondering about shields. you know how in the roman republic times, the generic shield was held and strapped parallel to the forearm, right? how come folks adopted the perpendicular way later on? I would think it is easier to use the shield not only to block, but to strike with the first configuration.

[Grunwalder]

Simple answer?

Charlemagne.

He conquered all the lands that comprised the earliest form of the Empire.

He goes to Rome for Christmas.

The Pope, sneaky bastard that he is, tricks him, and crowns him Emperor of the Romans, making him subservient[technically] to the Vatican.

About two hundred years later, Charlemagne is dead, and his land has been divided into three parts- The western part, that would become France about five hundred years later; the central area that comprised Provence and Italy called Lothringia; and the eastern part, modern day Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and a chunk of Austria, this area becomes the Holy Roman Empire. It was really founded by Otto I- the first Holy Roman Emperor.

There you have it- the very brief, very messy history of the founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

Articles and maps for your benefit:

Everything you might want to know about Carolus Magnus:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/einhard.html

This one here tells you just about anything you might want to know:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm

Not very precise, but a rundown of Otto I:
http://www.answers.com/topic/otto-i-holy-roman-emperor

Little bit about the crowning of Charlemagne
http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1349

A map of the 12th century Empire:
http://home.comcast.net/~vienna1230/maps/holy_roman_empire_1138_1254.jpg

Hope that helps.

[The Pope]

Take that, Charlemagne!

MUHUHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaaaa

[Merlkir]

on the note of roman shields. As you mentioned, they used a very aspis like hoplite shields. Those are heavy and not that maneuvreable as people think, they're basically only good for being held up in a formation. So the romans in order to create a more flexible units created (or  stole from the Celts as some believe) that oval shield. The handle is...different. It's still extremely good for keeping in position, it tires the wrist a lot, but doesn't tire the whole arm that much as you don't have to raise it so much. It's quite movable and if you watch ROME series by HBO, you'll see how flexible it is. People think it's not very suited for shield bashing or waving around. That's exactly what you don't have to do. You perform subtle energy saving moves, yet kill your enemy efficiently.

I think you can find some footage from ROME on youtube..

[Merlkir]

edit: also, while im in here making a topic, i was wondering about shields. you know how in the roman republic times, the generic shield was held and strapped parallel to the forearm, right? how come folks adopted the perpendicular way later on? I would think it is easier to use the shield not only to block, but to strike with the first configuration.

Merl, sure this is the right thread?

I'm quite sure it is

[ThVaz]

There is a joke about the Holy Roman Empire - it was neither Holy, nor Roman, or even a Empire.

[Skit]

it's not holy for sure but it maybe roman if there were romans in it and it was an empire,look at the size of it!

[ThVaz]

I am not sure, but I think for most (if not all) f his history the HRE was more an confederation than an empire.

[Tangent]

There is a joke about the Holy Roman Empire - it was neither Holy, nor Roman, or even a Empire.

Even if the Emperors came into conflict with the Papacy later on the Empire was still formally established by the Pope in Rome and so it was, nominally at least, both Holy and Roman in its origins.

And the state was ruled over by an "Emperor", so by definition at least it was an empire. 

[Gabeed]

During Charlamagne's reign the Empire was . . .kinda close to that of the old Western Roman Empire . . .though it lacked much of Spain, North Africa, and Southern Italy.  After he divides up his empire we lose that connection with the Romans--especially, as others have said, since the HRE was often at odds with Rome and the Vatican rather than ruling from it.

[D'Sparil]

There is a joke about the Holy Roman Empire - it was neither Holy, nor Roman, or even a Empire.

Credits go to Voltaire.

Edit:
This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
(Ce corps qui s'appelait et qui s'appelle encore le saint empire romain n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire).
-Essai sur l'histoire generale et sur les moeurs et l'espirit des nations, Chapter 70 (1756)

[ThVaz]

Didn't know it was Voltaire. I knew it is a famous quote, though.

Even if the Emperors came into conflict with the Papacy later on the Empire was still formally established by the Pope in Rome and so it was, nominally at least, both Holy and Roman in its origins.

Exactly. But not "at least". The HRE was Roman only in the name.

About the definition of empire, it is very vague, but I found this on the Wikipedia article about empires:

However, this does not mean that these states were themselves "empires" in the technical sense.(...). One entity often invoked as an example, the Holy Roman Empire, is claimed to be comprised exclusively of various Germanic states, all of whom were Christian, and who were led independently by local princes and in name only comprised a single state; thus the Holy Roman Empire was not always centrally controlled, did not comprise of a central "core" and periphery, was not multi-national or multi-ethnic, and was not dominated by a central elite (hence Voltaire's famous remark that the Holy Roman Empire, "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

The article says yet that this was not true in all the lifetime of the HRE - there were times when it could be defined as an empire.

[Tangent]

About the definition of empire, it is very vague, but I found this on the Wikipedia article about empires:

However, this does not mean that these states were themselves "empires" in the technical sense.(...). One entity often invoked as an example, the Holy Roman Empire, is claimed to be comprised exclusively of various Germanic states, all of whom were Christian, and who were led independently by local princes and in name only comprised a single state; thus the Holy Roman Empire was not always centrally controlled, did not comprise of a central "core" and periphery, was not multi-national or multi-ethnic, and was not dominated by a central elite (hence Voltaire's famous remark that the Holy Roman Empire, "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

The article says yet that this was not true in all the lifetime of the HRE - there were times when it could be defined as an empire.

Indeed. The Empire persisted for a long time but its period of centralised "imperial" power was restricted to only the first two centuries of its existence, ending with the Hohenstaufen dynasty of emperors. I believe there was a limited period of revival after the Interregnum but the Imperial institution declined in significance as time wore on...

[Grunwalder]

For the OP, what the others posters have said is very true- I gave your the short version, but what they're talking about is very important to the Empire.

Unlike the Roman Empire during it's golden age, or the Byzantine Empire of say, Justinian or Heraclius, the Holy Roman Empire was not a big, united Empire.

It was very similar to the Confederate States of America, in that all the little individual dukedoms, princedoms, free cities, regions, etc., they were all for the most part loyal to the Empire in name only. No good Bavarian would trust a Thuringian. No Austrian likes a Swabian. No Saxon would feel comfortable would with a Tirollian as an overlord. It was very regional empire.

In fact, very Byzantine. Lots of infighting, petty conflicts, backstabbery, and all the nastier things of Medieval politics were very much so present in the 'German' court.

[CrowBar]

Most popes were nasty during that time. I dislike them very much. In fact, I think they're all tricksters.