Tinto Flavour #6 - 14th of February 2025 - Bohemia

[Silens]

The Staatsverfassung books you refer to

I didn't cite any books or held on to some author's interpretations. I looked up the direct transcripts of the original legal documents, and specifically looked at their use of the terms HRE, German Reich, and possible combinations of both. In particular, I was looking for how often they'd use "Holy Roman Empire" with the suffix (or similar prefix) "of the German Nation".

And that is my observation, that there is an emphasis on "German"/"Germanic" the younger the document, possibly a foreshadowing of the rising (ethno-)nationalism in Europe.

Your original discussion was about what the HRE called itself, or rather how people in it (better yet "at the top of it") called it. You dismissed the dissolution document, because it was made after Italy left the entity. That's fair. Just that older documents also refer to the HRE's Germanic nature, and in doing so not necessarily just meant the kingdom of Germania within the HRE. The term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" isn't new. You can find it pretty early actually.

Before we go to the document(s), however, we have to look at what Charles IV did (which brings us back to Bohemia, the thread's main topic lol). With the Golden Bull of 1356 he defined the nature of the HRE and the electorate. He literally says the Electors are there to illuminate the Holy Empire. The title he used for his office was king of the Romans (Romanorum regis), and he didn't make much of a difference between the kingship of Germania and the emperorship of the Holy Empire. You'll also find that while the emperor traditionally held the kingdom of Germania as a separate title, both titles were always in personal union with the emperor.

Anyway, I mention the Golden Bull, because it makes it clear that the electorate votes for the emperor of the HRE, as was defined by Charles IV. In later years, the relationship between potential candidates for the title of Emperor and the electorate got a new legal dimension, the so called Wahlkapitulationen. They are basically promises between a candidate and the electorate (and potentially other estates), in case they elect the candidate. It's both sides struggling for power, centralization vs decentralization.

It is from those documents that I cite now. For example, you can find Emperor Charles V writing in 1519 in Art. 30 of the Wahlkapitulationen:

Wir sollen und wellen auch Unns, zum schirsten icht muglich und fueglich, heraus ins Reich Tewtscher Nation persondlich fuegen, die römisch kunigclich Cron, wie Unns als erweltem Römischen Kunig wol gezimbt, emphahen und annders, so sich deshalben gepürt, thun. Auch Unnser kunigclich Residentz, Anwesen und Hofhaltung in dem Heiligen Römischen Reich Tewtscher Nation, allen Glidern, Stennden und Underthanen desselben zu Eren, Nutz und Guetem des merern Teils ...

While the first term "Reich of the German Nation" could merely refer to Königreich of the German Nation (Kingdom of the German Nation), he uses the longer expression "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" in the next sentence. And I don't really think he suddenly jumps from kingdom to empire within two sentences of the same article of this document. Especially since this article talks about the residence and coronation of the emperor, not king. And also because the electorate is mainly concerned with electing and crowning the emperor over the entire Reich.

Kaiser Ferdinand I modifies the document in 1531, but he more or less copies the relevant part:

Wir sollen und wellen auch die römisch kunigclich Cron wie Unns als erwellten Römischen Kunig wol gezimbt, emphahen und annders, so sich desshalb gepürt, thun. Auch Unnser kunigclich Residentz, Anwesen und Hofhalltung in dem Heiligen Römischen Reich Teutscher Nation, allen Glidernn, Stännden und Unnderthanen desselben zu Eeren Nutz und Guetem des mereren Tails ...

He leaves no doubt that he is referring to the "HRE of the German Nation".

Rudolf II. in 1571 does the same, when he adds the same article with the wording "in dem Hailigen Römischen Reich Teutscher Nation, allen Glidern, Stenden unnd Underthanen desselben". Many others after him do the same, for centuries actually. You'll often find the same patterns: Holy Empire, Reich of the German Nation, HRE of the German Nation, Germanic HRE, sometimes it's the king of the Romans, sometimes the emperor of the Reich...

I'm sure I could find more in other documents, but this isn't a dissertation here. For the sake of closing my argument, I'll try to answer the question: was the "HRE of the GN" the official name?

I'd say it depends on what you say is official. It was used in official documents of the HRE, written (or at least signed) by the emperors of the HRE. That, for me, constitutes 'official'. It's probably even a bit too narrow to try and corner the entity into one singular official name. It had several names, used interchangeably over the course of centuries. So while "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation" was not THE official name, it was officially in use as ONE OF the names for the entity.

Whar are your thoughts on that approach, can we find common ground?

 

[Polesie Admiral]

people are arguing here about the name of the HRE, fr...

 

[Inzano]

people are arguing here about the name of the HRE, fr...

Better than about Moldova xD

 

[RohenTahir]

Will be any even chain\situation or anything about Bohemian-Polish struggle for Silesia?

 

[Silens]

people are arguing here about the name of the HRE, fr...

An argument, which tbf, I did build on Charles IV, King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, who had a long and successful reign...

 

[PatatjeFriet]

I didn't cite any books or held on to some author's interpretations. I looked up the direct transcripts of the original legal documents, and specifically looked at their use of the terms HRE, German Reich, and possible combinations of both. In particular, I was looking for how often they'd use "Holy Roman Empire" with the suffix (or similar prefix) "of the German Nation".

And that is my observation, that there is an emphasis on "German"/"Germanic" the younger the document, possibly a foreshadowing of the rising (ethno-)nationalism in Europe.

Your original discussion was about what the HRE called itself, or rather how people in it (better yet "at the top of it") called it. You dismissed the dissolution document, because it was made after Italy left the entity. That's fair. Just that older documents also refer to the HRE's Germanic nature, and in doing so not necessarily just meant the kingdom of Germania within the HRE. The term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" isn't new. You can find it pretty early actually.

Before we go to the document(s), however, we have to look at what Charles IV did (which brings us back to Bohemia, the thread's main topic lol). With the Golden Bull of 1356 he defined the nature of the HRE and the electorate. He literally says the Electors are there to illuminate the Holy Empire. The title he used for his office was king of the Romans (Romanorum regis), and he didn't make much of a difference between the kingship of Germania and the emperorship of the Holy Empire. You'll also find that while the emperor traditionally held the kingdom of Germania as a separate title, both titles were always in personal union with the emperor.

Anyway, I mention the Golden Bull, because it makes it clear that the electorate votes for the emperor of the HRE, as was defined by Charles IV. In later years, the relationship between potential candidates for the title of Emperor and the electorate got a new legal dimension, the so called Wahlkapitulationen. They are basically promises between a candidate and the electorate (and potentially other estates), in case they elect the candidate. It's both sides struggling for power, centralization vs decentralization.

It is from those documents that I cite now. For example, you can find Emperor Charles V writing in 1519 in Art. 30 of the Wahlkapitulationen:

While the first term "Reich of the German Nation" could merely refer to Königreich of the German Nation (Kingdom of the German Nation), he uses the longer expression "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" in the next sentence. And I don't really think he suddenly jumps from kingdom to empire within two sentences of the same article of this document. Especially since this article talks about the residence and coronation of the emperor, not king. And also because the electorate is mainly concerned with electing and crowning the emperor over the entire Reich.

Kaiser Ferdinand I modifies the document in 1531, but he more or less copies the relevant part:

He leaves no doubt that he is referring to the "HRE of the German Nation".

Rudolf II. in 1571 does the same, when he adds the same article with the wording "in dem Hailigen Römischen Reich Teutscher Nation, allen Glidern, Stenden unnd Underthanen desselben". Many others after him do the same, for centuries actually. You'll often find the same patterns: Holy Empire, Reich of the German Nation, HRE of the German Nation, Germanic HRE, sometimes it's the king of the Romans, sometimes the emperor of the Reich...

I'm sure I could find more in other documents, but this isn't a dissertation here. For the sake of closing my argument, I'll try to answer the question: was the "HRE of the GN" the official name?

I'd say it depends on what you say is official. It was used in official documents of the HRE, written (or at least signed) by the emperors of the HRE. That, for me, constitutes 'official'. It's probably even a bit too narrow to try and corner the entity into one singular official name. It had several names, used interchangeably over the course of centuries. So while "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation" was not THE official name, it was officially in use as ONE OF the names for the entity.

Whar are your thoughts on that approach, can we find common ground?

You dont have to tell me about the staatsverfassung of the empire, I have read numerous constitutional works from the 18th century and many secundary literature dealing with the subject.

Peter H. Wilson, a well known historian of HRE history who wrote Heart of Europe says himself in this work that "of the German Nation" was never officially adopted.

The older documents before 1801 which you refered to in your previous post (not this one) did not state "Of the German Nation" and as I attempted to explain to you moreso refered to the Kingdom of Germany and its institutions.

An interesting part I found in Charles V's capitulation:

"des Heiligen Römischen Reichs in Germanurn, Italien, auch Gallien und durch das Kunigreich Arelaten Ertzcanntzler" when refering to the three archchancellors and their respective jurisdictions, which clearly writes in a similar matter as all the other texts which refer to for example Holy Roman Empire of or in Germany.

And concerning point 30. How I interpret the text, especially as they are first refering to Reich Teutscher Nation (in my opinion a clear reference to the German Kingdom) and then refer to the kunigclich Residentz (...) in dem Heiliges Römischen Reich Tewtscher Nation in which the first part is translated as royal (in a kingdom sense) residence which is therefore still refering to the kingdom which makes me conclude the second part "in the Holy Roman Empire German Nation specifies that they are dealing with the Kingdom of Germany within the HRE. If it was talking about the HRE itself, they wouldnt use kunigclich residentz but something that would refer to the imperial residence.

And once again, how do you explain the suffix used in multiple texts "of the Italian nation"? If your argument is that the use of "of the German nation" means it was germanic, than you cannot deny that the usage of this suffix that includes Italian means that the Holy Roman Empire was German *and* Italian. There is no other way with your logic to explain that usage.

And in concerns to me saying the books you refer to, my apologies for that. I misread your post and because I read multiple legal books of the 18th century, my brain assumed you were refering to those (Moser coincidentaly published around 1752) but so that was my mistake, I should have read it more carefully.

 

[Silens]

@PatatjeFriet

You raise a good point. In which documents are they referring to the HRE as the "Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation"? I'd love to see them for myself and try to explain the context. It's not a term that I ever came across, so you make me curious.

As for the importance of the Kingdom of Germania and Art 30, the entire Wahlkapitulation is between the electorate and the emperor, to stipulate obligations and rights between both in case of the electors choosing and crowning the candiate as emperor. That's why I threw in Charles IV with his Golden Bull, to make it clear that the electorate is (and always was) a purely imperial institution, crowning the emperor first and foremost.

It makes no sense to talk in that document about the German kingship alone, since the entire document is about the relation between emperor and his electors. Art 30 is about the residence and coronation of the emperor. Later emperors even drop the first "Reich Teutscher Nation" and only use the full form of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

I'd even go as far as to say that making the distinction between HREmperor and king of Germania is already a bit of a stretch. When did being king of Germany ever have any significance for the HREmperor, other than being the dominant ethnicity/geographical region making up the majority in the empire? It was a title among many, but beyond that, practically?

Ever since Otto in the 10th century, the emperor of the HRE was always automatically the king of Germania (the former East Francia, Otto's title before he became emperor). We could (and probably should) contemplate if Otto's new imperial crown subsumed the old one. I'd say that yes, it did. Emperors in the following centuries made it clear that they were Roman Emperors ruling a holy empire. The practical relevance of ethnicity and ethno-nationalism only became relevant much later, when the HRE (among other monarchies) was nearing its end.

In fact, I think I once read that the title "king of the Germans" was used by either the Pope or the Eastern Romans, who wanted to diminish the importance of the emperor calling himself the King of the Romans, which offended one or both of them (who saw themselves as Romans). The HREmperors had an interest in calling themselves Roman.

As for "des Heiligen Römischen Reichs in Germanurn, Italien, auch Gallien und durch das Kunigreich Arelaten Ertzcanntzler"... yes, naming all territories within the Holy Empire isn't that uncommon. This is one of the many cases, where they simply use HRE and specify the territory it holds. As I said, not every mention of HRE has a prefix or suffix. That entity was called many names over the centuries, and "HRE of the German Nation" was one of them.

 

[PatatjeFriet]

@PatatjeFriet

You raise a good point. In which documents are they referring to the HRE as the "Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation"? I'd love to see them for myself and try to explain the context. It's not a term that I ever came across, so you make me curious.

As for the importance of the Kingdom of Germania and Art 30, the entire Wahlkapitulation is between the electorate and the emperor, to stipulate obligations and rights between both in case of the electors choosing and crowning the candiate as emperor. That's why I threw in Charles IV with his Golden Bull, to make it clear that the electorate is (and always was) a purely imperial institution, crowning the emperor first and foremost.

It makes no sense to talk in that document about the German kingship alone, since the entire document is about the relation between emperor and his electors. Art 30 is about the residence and coronation of the emperor. Later emperors even drop the first "Reich Teutscher Nation" and only use the full form of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

I'd even go as far as to say that making the distinction between HREmperor and king of Germania is already a bit of a stretch. When did being king of Germany ever have any significance for the HREmperor, other than being the dominant ethnicity/geographical region making up the majority in the empire? It was a title among many, but beyond that, practically?

Ever since Otto in the 10th century, the emperor of the HRE was always automatically the king of Germania (the former East Francia, Otto's title before he became emperor). We could (and probably should) contemplate if Otto's new imperial crown subsumed the old one. I'd say that yes, it did. Emperors in the following centuries made it clear that they were Roman Emperors ruling a holy empire. The practical relevance of ethnicity and ethno-nationalism only became relevant much later, when the HRE (among other monarchies) was nearing its end.

In fact, I think I once read that the title "king of the Germans" was used by either the Pope or the Eastern Romans, who wanted to diminish the importance of the emperor calling himself the King of the Romans, which offended one or both of them (who saw themselves as Romans). The HREmperors had an interest in calling themselves Roman.

As for "des Heiligen Römischen Reichs in Germanurn, Italien, auch Gallien und durch das Kunigreich Arelaten Ertzcanntzler"... yes, naming all territories within the Holy Empire isn't that uncommon. This is one of the many cases, where they simply use HRE and specify the territory it holds. As I said, not every mention of HRE has a prefix or suffix. That entity was called many names over the centuries, and "HRE of the German Nation" was one of them.

For "Of the Italian Nation" you can find in Google Books for example Girtanner's Politischen Analen Volume 6 (page 3.) and Von Franckenberg's Europäischer Herold (either page 619 or 620). Especially Girtanner is worth to read just because it is an interesting subject matter as he writes about the possible differences between Italian and German Reichskrieg.

It does make sense to talk about German kingship, as it was one of the subkingdoms of the HRE and all the electors were part of that particular subkingdom although the elections were indeed imperial elections. But again, it makes no sense to talk about royal residence (in a kingdom sense) when they would refer to the empire. How do you explain that?

And king of Germany is an important distinction as it ensures the understanding that they are also the kings of Italy and Arelat, which are not constitutionally speaking the same. And it was still a title used, even in the abdication of Francis, the title of King of Germany is used.

Exactly for the same reason of the emperors having a reason to call themselves Roman (which is because of Translatio Imperii) is the reason they want to emphasize them being emperors. Hence why it makes no sense to refer to a royal residence in a kingdom sense. Otherwise they would have used the equivalent royal residence in a imperial sense (something like kaiserlichen residenz).

Also my point of refering to the archchancellors was exactly because of the wording. They mention Holy Roman Empire in X. In which X is not only mentioned as Germany, but also Italy etc. This is very similar wording to "in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" used in clause 30. Why would they say HRE *in* X, and not just HRE? Or Kingdom of X? That would make more sense. The fact that they do say it like this, implicates that is is a normal way for them to refer to the subdivisions. So Holy Roman Empire *in* Italy, is refering to the Kingdom of Italy. With this same logic, and the fact that "of the Italian Nation" was also used, I can not but otherwise conclude that they refer to the subkingdoms. Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation = Kingdom of Germany, Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation = Kingdom of Italy.

 

[Kvesir]

Why does the Teutonicum privilege affect all commoners with lower tax and grant all non-Culture pops higher levies, when it is supposed to grant lower tax and more migration attraction for German pops specifically? Is it not possible to have government policies and other modifiers apply for a specific culture?

 

[Silens]

For "Of the Italian Nation" you can find in Google Books for example Girtanner's Politischen Analen Volume 6 (page 3.) and Von Franckenberg's Europäischer Herold (either page 619 or 620). Especially Girtanner is worth to read just because it is an interesting subject matter as he writes about the possible differences between Italian and German Reichskrieg.

Had a look. So, Girtanner isn't exactly a contemporary medieval writer, or a politician writing/signing official documents, where naming stuff (at least semi-)correctly matters that much. The book you mention was released in 1794, so it was written in the months before; it's a bit funny that you dismiss sources from just a few years later, yet build your argument about naming conventions on a book written so close to the end of the HRE.

That aside, he writes about Italy and its relation to the HRE:

"[Kapitel] I. Über die Verbindlichkeit der Reichsangeörigen in Italien, an den Lasten des gegenwärtigen Reichskriegs Theil zu nehmen."
"[Chapter] I. About the Obligation of Reichsmembers in Italy, to take part in the expenses of the current Reichs-war."

So, he specifically writes about Italy's obligation to contribute to the ongoing war, in which the Reich was involved at that time. Given that the book is from 1794, we are in the First Coalition War against France (which they didn't know was the FIRST of several).

Girtanner continues, and I'll only give you the translated version:

"The Roman-German Reich, or the Reich [of the] German and Italian Nation, is a system of states, which composes of one emperorship and three kingdoms. In its middle regally rests the German Kingdom; around that three satellites revolve: the Roman Emperorship, the Langobard Kingdom, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem."

This view is interesting, because he puts the kingdom of Germany above the emperorship. But if you read my previous posts, you'll notice that this is exactly my observation: the closer you get to the age of nationalism (late 18th and 19th century), the more you find an emphasis on the "German" part, while the more ancient and international nature of the HRE takes a step back.

The author calls the composition of titles "prahlerisch" (boastful) and says that you don't hear much about them anyway, so it's clear he has not the highest opinion of the HRE, which he (along with the other two titles) finds unimportant and ceremonial. The German nationalism in him becomes clear to me, when he writes "It is more important to know the German Kingdom in its smallest parts, than the entire Reich in its entirety". He goes on to call the Kingdom of Italy a "shadow kingdom", which deserves to be called a kingdom as much, as a noble claims to have estates, which turn out to be a bit of a small obligation here, a little bit tax to collect there, but with no 100% ownership of actual land. "Not much, and the Italian Kingdom is a patchwork of state-obligations [without real land/estates]".

His work revolves around the question, just how much the German Vaterland can make Italy pay for the war with France, and he gets very excited when mentioning they'd have to bear the brunt of the costs. He takes a shot at the Italian nobles, who wanted a distinction between a German Reichskrieg and an Italian Reichskrieg (probably born out of Italian nationalistic sentiment), so now their wish should be granted, and they should pay for the "Italian Reichskrieg".

He then talks about the general nature of Italian-German relations within the Reich, that they're not as fleshed out as they could be, makes remarks towards Wahlkapitulationen, where Italian estates get specific rights promised by the Kaiser... and yeah, you get the idea what the book is about.

Girtanner's book is not unbiased would be my verdict, and he doesn't call the entire entity "Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation".

Von Franckenberg wrote in the early 1700's, which to me is a better source, since it's a century removed from European nationalism. Besides the fact that he also obviously isn't writing a legal document here, where correct terminology matters in a legal sense, if you look at his entire first work, you'll notice his almost excessive use of "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation". The entire first publication is about the "HRE of the German Nation", and he writes it over and over again.

His second book, which I guess is what you refer to, deals with sovereign principalities in general, and pages 619/620 are about the Papacy. Specifically, he says:

"Denn weil der Pabst die wichgigsten landschafften in Italien besitzes, so ist er nechst dem Kayser der höhest- und oberste Fürst im heil. Röm. Reich Italinischer Nation, wie Chur-
Mayntz in Teutschland."
"Because the Pope owns the most important territories in Italy, he is next to the Emperor the next highest prince in the Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation, just like Kurmainz in Germany" (the electorate of Mainz)

It is obvious that he talks not about the Italian portion of the HRE. That doesn't make a case for your point, it underlines that "of the Italian Nation" is an occurence with specific authors (like von Franckenberg here), who write articles about regions in Europe and need to specify them.

You're in so far right, that "in X" or "of the X nation" was also sometimes used to make territorial distinctions. But "of the German Nation" often enough referred to the entire entity of the HRE, while "of the Italian Nation" was only used in literature dealing with Italy in particular.

Exactly for the same reason of the emperors having a reason to call themselves Roman (which is because of Translatio Imperii) is the reason they want to emphasize them being emperors. Hence why it makes no sense to refer to a royal residence in a kingdom sense.

There was not such a clear difference between emperors and kings as we might expect it today. You'll often see old documents refer to the Kaiser as the "King of the Romans". It doesn't help that in German the word "Reich" is part of the word "Königreich" = kingdom. The Roman Empire in German is Römisches Reich, the imperial crown is the Reichskrone.

I have little confidence in the hypothesis that every instance of "Reich" refers to the kingdom of Germany and not the HRE as an empire. Especially since empire and kingdom of Germany were a personal union, the king of Germany was always the emperor of the HRE and vice versa.

And again, the Wahlkapitulationen are inherently imperial documents in nature. Claiming that "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" only means the kingdom of Germany is a very... let's say daring claim.

 

[PatatjeFriet]

Had a look. So, Girtanner isn't exactly a contemporary medieval writer, or a politician writing/signing official documents, where naming stuff (at least semi-)correctly matters that much. The book you mention was released in 1794, so it was written in the months before; it's a bit funny that you dismiss sources from just a few years later, yet build your argument about naming conventions on a book written so close to the end of the HRE.

That aside, he writes about Italy and its relation to the HRE:

So, he specifically writes about Italy's obligation to contribute to the ongoing war, in which the Reich was involved at that time. Given that the book is from 1794, we are in the First Coalition War against France (which they didn't know was the FIRST of several).

Girtanner continues, and I'll only give you the translated version:

This view is interesting, because he puts the kingdom of Germany above the emperorship. But if you read my previous posts, you'll notice that this is exactly my observation: the closer you get to the age of nationalism (late 18th and 19th century), the more you find an emphasis on the "German" part, while the more ancient and international nature of the HRE takes a step back.

The author calls the composition of titles "prahlerisch" (boastful) and says that you don't hear much about them anyway, so it's clear he has not the highest opinion of the HRE, which he (along with the other two titles) finds unimportant and ceremonial. The German nationalism in him becomes clear to me, when he writes "It is more important to know the German Kingdom in its smallest parts, than the entire Reich in its entirety". He goes on to call the Kingdom of Italy a "shadow kingdom", which deserves to be called a kingdom as much, as a noble claims to have estates, which turn out to be a bit of a small obligation here, a little bit tax to collect there, but with no 100% ownership of actual land. "Not much, and the Italian Kingdom is a patchwork of state-obligations [without real land/estates]".

His work revolves around the question, just how much the German Vaterland can make Italy pay for the war with France, and he gets very excited when mentioning they'd have to bear the brunt of the costs. He takes a shot at the Italian nobles, who wanted a distinction between a German Reichskrieg and an Italian Reichskrieg (probably born out of Italian nationalistic sentiment), so now their wish should be granted, and they should pay for the "Italian Reichskrieg".

He then talks about the general nature of Italian-German relations within the Reich, that they're not as fleshed out as they could be, makes remarks towards Wahlkapitulationen, where Italian estates get specific rights promised by the Kaiser... and yeah, you get the idea what the book is about.

Girtanner's book is not unbiased would be my verdict, and he doesn't call the entire entity "Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation".

Von Franckenberg wrote in the early 1700's, which to me is a better source, since it's a century removed from European nationalism. Besides the fact that he also obviously isn't writing a legal document here, where correct terminology matters in a legal sense, if you look at his entire first work, you'll notice his almost excessive use of "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation". The entire first publication is about the "HRE of the German Nation", and he writes it over and over again.

His second book, which I guess is what you refer to, deals with sovereign principalities in general, and pages 619/620 are about the Papacy. Specifically, he says:

It is obvious that he talks not about the Italian portion of the HRE. That doesn't make a case for your point, it underlines that "of the Italian Nation" is an occurence with specific authors (like von Franckenberg here), who write articles about regions in Europe and need to specify them.

You're in so far right, that "in X" or "of the X nation" was also sometimes used to make territorial distinctions. But "of the German Nation" often enough referred to the entire entity of the HRE, while "of the Italian Nation" was only used in literature dealing with Italy in particular.


There was not such a clear difference between emperors and kings as we might expect it today. You'll often see old documents refer to the Kaiser as the "King of the Romans". It doesn't help that in German the word "Reich" is part of the word "Königreich" = kingdom. The Roman Empire in German is Römisches Reich, the imperial crown is the Reichskrone.

I have little confidence in the hypothesis that every instance of "Reich" refers to the kingdom of Germany and not the HRE as an empire. Especially since empire and kingdom of Germany were a personal union, the king of Germany was always the emperor of the HRE and vice versa.

And again, the Wahlkapitulationen are inherently imperial documents in nature. Claiming that "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" only means the kingdom of Germany is a very... let's say daring claim.

I dont feel like we are getting anywhere as we both are not prepared to change our minds.

To me there are some obvious errors in your argumentation but I cannot respond to them right now and as mentioned previously, I feel like for us both it would be better to end the discussion as we are just spending time without achieving anything.

The only things I do want to add (as they are the most blatant) here is that you ignored the part where Girtanner mentions "of the Italian Nation" and that you misunderstood (and I am pretty sure mistranslated) his point about knowing the empire in its smallest detail. He even mentions that of all the shadow kingdoms, Italy has the most relevance in that period. He means to say that German publicists should pay *more* attention to those areas of constitutional law. Furthermore your assertion that it is strange to use a source from 1794 is very weird to me. My argument is that post 1801 documents matter less as the empire lost Italy. 1794 is clearly before that and Italy was very much still part of the empire, those people did not know that a few years later Italy would be lost. This is hindsight you are speaking of. Additionally 1794 is more important in our discussion as you say yourself that the more you go to the 19th century the more pronounced proto-nationalism becomes. The mere fact that the suffix "of the Italian Nation" is used in this period shows how proto-nationalism did not change its usage.

And it also seems to me you do not know about the reichspublicisten and reichspublistik. Works like this are in fact important legal works about the constitution of the empire and are by many historians considered to have authority on the subject (look for example at Johann Jacob Moser).

 

[Silens]

you ignored the part where Girtanner mentions "of the Italian Nation" and that you misunderstood (and I am pretty sure mistranslated) his point about knowing the empire in its smallest detail. He even mentions that of all the shadow kingdoms, Italy has the most relevance in that period. He means to say that German publicists should pay *more* attention to those areas of constitutional law.

Oh, I do understand Girtanner's wider point pretty well. Do you? To me it seems that you're picking single sentences that suit your point, and leave out the entire context they're written in, or what Girtanner tries to do here.

Do you understand why he laments the low attention Italy gets? Because in his mind, Italy gets off too lightly and should pay more for the war effort. Girtanner's entire chapter deals with obligations of the Italians towards the Germans in the ongoing war. He isn't unbiased, he is a German writing about Italy's war contribution, and he looks back at i.e. the Wahlkapitulationen, or past contributions from the Spanish succession wars, to try and determine the exact nature of Reichsgerman and Italian relations and how much they should ultimately contribute now.

Wording like "to us Germans" or "the German Vaterland would get much" dominate, and he talks about Italy's "Nutzen" (=use) to the Germans. Hell, even the first sentence begins with the word "Das römischdeutsche Reich" (=the Roman-German Reich).

And do you realize that he means Italy, when he uses the wording "Langobardic kingdom", which he calls a "shadow realm"? He states that for him, of the three "shadow realms" (Roman Empire, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Longobard Kingdom) the Italian kingdom is the most realistic, only to diss it as little more than a barely existing net of little obligations, a patchwork of miniscule things, and he does so in the very same sentence

I'm fairly certain that you have no idea of the nationalistic undertone Girtanner writes in. He is not neutral, to the point of saying that the Roman Empire is an unrealistic piece of imagination and that only the German Kingdom in it is important. If that isn't German pro-nationalism, then idk what else to tell you.

Furthermore your assertion that it is strange to use a source from 1794 is very weird to me. My argument is that post 1801 documents matter less as the empire lost Italy. 1794 is clearly before that and Italy was very much still part of the empire, those people did not know that a few years later Italy would be lost. This is hindsight you are speaking of. Additionally 1794 is more important in our discussion as you say yourself that the more you go to the 19th century the more pronounced proto-nationalism becomes. The mere fact that the suffix "of the Italian Nation" is used in this period shows how proto-nationalism did not change its usage.

I mean, weren't we originally talking about naming conventions of the HRE throughout the centuries, attempting to find which names were officially used for it? With people like Girtanner, we're so close to the end of the HRE, with nationalistic sentiments shining through so clearly, that it's hard to separate nationalistic views from them. You'll hardly find unbiased sources from that time.

I draw the opposite conclusion, that the proto-nationalism of the later 18th century poisons the credibility of naming conventions in publications. A text like Girtanner's, for the reasons stated above, is a prime example of that.

And it also seems to me you do not know about the reichspublicisten and reichspublistik. Works like this are in fact important legal works about the constitution of the empire and are by many historians considered to have authority on the subject (look for example at Johann Jacob Moser).

First and foremost, those publications were scientific opinions, part of an ongoing discourse, in which you had several - at times opposing - positions. The equivalent today would be taking a single book on political science, and claim that this is a legal document with a constitutional character. The difference between both should be obvious.

 

[PatatjeFriet]

Oh, I do understand Girtanner's wider point pretty well. Do you? To me it seems that you're picking single sentences that suit your point, and leave out the entire context they're written in, or what Girtanner tries to do here.

Do you understand why he laments the low attention Italy gets? Because in his mind, Italy gets off too lightly and should pay more for the war effort. Girtanner's entire chapter deals with obligations of the Italians towards the Germans in the ongoing war. He isn't unbiased, he is a German writing about Italy's war contribution, and he looks back at i.e. the Wahlkapitulationen, or past contributions from the Spanish succession wars, to try and determine the exact nature of Reichsgerman and Italian relations and how much they should ultimately contribute now.

Wording like "to us Germans" or "the German Vaterland would get much" dominate, and he talks about Italy's "Nutzen" (=use) to the Germans. Hell, even the first sentence begins with the word "Das römischdeutsche Reich" (=the Roman-German Reich).

And do you realize that he means Italy, when he uses the wording "Langobardic kingdom", which he calls a "shadow realm"? He states that for him, of the three "shadow realms" (Roman Empire, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Longobard Kingdom) the Italian kingdom is the most realistic, only to diss it as little more than a barely existing net of little obligations, a patchwork of miniscule things, and he does so in the very same sentence

I'm fairly certain that you have no idea of the nationalistic undertone Girtanner writes in. He is not neutral, to the point of saying that the Roman Empire is an unrealistic piece of imagination and that only the German Kingdom in it is important. If that isn't German pro-nationalism, then idk what else to tell you.


I mean, weren't we originally talking about naming conventions of the HRE throughout the centuries, attempting to find which names were officially used for it? With people like Girtanner, we're so close to the end of the HRE, with nationalistic sentiments shining through so clearly, that it's hard to separate nationalistic views from them. You'll hardly find unbiased sources from that time.

I draw the opposite conclusion, that the proto-nationalism of the later 18th century poisons the credibility of naming conventions in publications. A text like Girtanner's, for the reasons stated above, is a prime example of that.

First and foremost, those publications were scientific opinions, part of an ongoing discourse, in which you had several - at times opposing - positions. The equivalent today would be taking a single book on political science, and claim that this is a legal document with a constitutional character. The difference between both should be obvious.

My guy I wrote my bachelor thesis on this topic with a professor instructor who specializes in related topics. He himself has said multiple times that you cannot call these words pure nationalism, and that, while they are definately sharing nationalistic undertones are not the same as nationalism in the 19th century.

You dont have to lecture me on Girtanner because I read the entire part concerning Italy for my thesis.

You lack the entire context of reichspublicisten, of which Girtanner was one, it was a big debate under them in the 18th century concerning what use Italy still was for Germany, Seidensticker, another publicist, goes into much more depth and has similar points as Girtanner. Girtanner is in this work concerned with the fact to what extent the reichskrieg are the same for Germany and Italy and what contributions Italy has to make, if you actually read the entire text you will discover that he concludes that there is no difference between the two.

I also find it very funny that you accuse me of cherry picking lines when the entire discussion was about the naming and you yourself asked where I amongst others found "of the Italian nation" *you* then continue to ignore that line in Girtanners work and have the audacity to say I am cherry picking? Give me a break.

I am very well read in Girtanner, I even have a section of my thesis dealing with the undertones, specifically analysing the term Vaterland and Nation. Yet how is this relevant for the naming? What does it change if he is biased? Wouldnt he then just simply not use "of the Italian Nation"? It is all about the total picture, its both Zech and Girtanner you have to look at together and in that perspective it is very interesting that even Girtanner still uses it.

 

[Silens]

*you* [...] have the audacity to say I am cherry picking?

Yes.

Give me a break.

No.

See, I don't ignore Girtanner's use of the term here, I read it in the context of the work it is mentioned in, as a product of its time. You ask what does it matter that he is biased, that he has those nationalistic undertones? Because the word "nation" carries a bit more meaning coming out of the mouth of a (proto-)nationalist. Isn't that obvious?

Regardless, he talks about the Italian part of the HRE, Italy's relation to the German part of the HRE is the centerpiece of his lecture. Within the confines of that, it's ok to use "HRE of the German and Italian Nation", to put an emphasis on two poles within one entity. Not once did I dismiss its use as nonsense. It's a clever use of a known term (HRE of the German Nation) to make his point that the HRE is in fact not monolithic German.

It's just that this doesn't make the term any older, or more official for how the HRE was commonly called over a longer period of time. The "HRE of the German Nation" was widely used, in all sorts of official documents since centuries, by the emperors themselves even, dating back to the 1500's and more. Girtanner's version wasn't. Maybe it would eventually find its way into official use, if the HRE survived another 200 years, with distinct Italian and German nationalist identities present? Who knows, but we won't, because shortly after Girtanner's work Italy left anyway, and the HRE was dissolved almost as fast.

So far you showed that "of the Italian Nation" is only ever used towards the end of the HRE's lifespan, when the author talks about the Italian part of the HRE specifically, and wants to make clear that he means that specific part of Italy. I pointed out original, at the time legally binding sources for the "HRE of the German Nation" going back far longer.

If you can show me any legally binding document from the HRE, such as a declaration of an emperor, a binding contract, or a resolution of a governing imperial body, or even correspondence of an emperor or elector or some other very high official within the entity, or any king or emperor outside of it, which or who uses the term "HRE of the German and Italian Nation", then I'll gladly concede the point and thank you for the fruitful exchange. I mean it.

What I don't appreciate are empty arguments of authority. People usually seek shelter under them, when they run out of other options. "I'm your mother!" "I'm your teacher!" or "I wrote my thesis on this!" "I spoke to a professor about this" "Have I mentioned my thesis about this?" "Oh, this was part of my thesis, that makes me right and you wrong!"

Arguments based solely on authority are never good. Well, except if you were Girtanner himself. Then yes, then I'd apologize and probably also ask you for the secret of life.

 

[ArVass]

1. Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking for the country. It is a fiefdom, a special type of vassal.

What makes fiefdoms special? How are they different?

 

[Deleted user]

This is peak

 

[nestorius]

Can I ask why he is Jehan? I have never seen this like this. In Czech he is call Jan Lucembursky which is the Czech version of John. Maybe he could be Johann the German version or maybe you could use Jang which apparantly is the Luxembourghish variant. But never saw anywhere it written Jehan but please correct me if I am wrong

 

[ValarKat]

My guy I wrote my bachelor thesis on this topic with a professor instructor who specializes in related topics. He himself has said multiple times that you cannot call these words pure nationalism, and that, while they are definately sharing nationalistic undertones are not the same as nationalism in the 19th century.

You dont have to lecture me on Girtanner because I read the entire part concerning Italy for my thesis.

You lack the entire context of reichspublicisten, of which Girtanner was one, it was a big debate under them in the 18th century concerning what use Italy still was for Germany, Seidensticker, another publicist, goes into much more depth and has similar points as Girtanner. Girtanner is in this work concerned with the fact to what extent the reichskrieg are the same for Germany and Italy and what contributions Italy has to make, if you actually read the entire text you will discover that he concludes that there is no difference between the two.

I also find it very funny that you accuse me of cherry picking lines when the entire discussion was about the naming and you yourself asked where I amongst others found "of the Italian nation" *you* then continue to ignore that line in Girtanners work and have the audacity to say I am cherry picking? Give me a break.

I am very well read in Girtanner, I even have a section of my thesis dealing with the undertones, specifically analysing the term Vaterland and Nation. Yet how is this relevant for the naming? What does it change if he is biased? Wouldnt he then just simply not use "of the Italian Nation"? It is all about the total picture, its both Zech and Girtanner you have to look at together and in that perspective it is very interesting that even Girtanner still uses it.

Yep. Because people who are "well read" and "have their thesis on that topic" need to mention this, because otherwise we wouldnt notice.

How about this: You actually try not to cherrypick ( yes, thats totally valid to say so far ) quotes and sources that fit only your into your set of arguments. Actually, you seem to ignore everything else regarding the HRE, where the hell are you from? Casually asking.

And a last thing, sources are biased at any given time. I thought this getting taught at Universities, but life is full of surprises. You cant take one or even a few sources and be like "now I am save". Nope. You have to compare so much stuff to get a just a hint of what actually happened.
Letters from people talking about the HRE, sources who are contrary in position to eachother, what about sources of observers like the danish or turkish at that time?

It seems to me you are just being a d*** to everyone here who isnt your opinion and back it up with "I have far more knowledge than you do". Congrats on that, please talk to your prof again and come back, thank you.

 

[SDSSD]

1. Є особливості Вишеградського конгресу для Угорщини та Польщі
2. В Угорщини є інші речі
3. Вагенбург є ексклюзивом для Богемії
4. Як тільки хуситизм породив, він вільно поширюється
5. Це насправді не Ян Гус

Але й Богдан Хмельницький під час війни з Річчю Посполитою часто використовував тактику Вагенбурга.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

will Poland or Lithuania be able to participate in the hussite wars situation? would we have characters related to the wars except Hus like Zizka or Prokop?