Talk:Holy Roman Empire

No map of 17th century religious divisions?

@Aearthrise: Following the changes you did in late January, there is now no map that shows the religious divisions of the empire on the eve of the Thirty Years War. It appears that you tried to replace the old map by File:The Protestant Union within the Holy Roman Empire (c. 1610).svg,[1] and then decided to get rid of it entirely. I think that's been a mistake, and would suggest that we add back File:HolyRomanEmpire 1618.png. Renerpho (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Since there was no opposition, I've added back it back. Renerpho (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

@Sigehelmus and Karma1998: I agree with Karma1998 that the current note is silly. Worse, nothing in or to the HRE in 1054, as the infobox makes it appear. But Sigehelmus has a point, too. More relevant concepts for the earlier period are Latin West and Greek East and Latin Church. —Srnec (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous, and highly misleading - the post-Reformation stuff is worse than the usual silliness around the Gt Schism. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of general problems with Wikipedia treatment of pre-Schism historiography. And that's okay; really it's a legacy of the 2000s when the East was hardly given a glance. Most people didn't even know what "Orthodox" meant. It seems only in the past decade have things marginally improved (there's still tons of articles for example, of obscure ancient saints that only say "venerated in RC". I've tried to remedy this occasionally). I remember a time when many articles only mentioned the Western churches on general faith topics all the time. (I won't even get into the dearth of even more "eastern" perspectives like Coptic/Nestorian, but it'd probably be a mess)

As for the HRE per se, as I believe Johnbod is implying (forgive me if not), I think the current infobox is a bit hypocritical. All that rich text about later intricacies, and we can't fit one discreet note in there about the early period? Either it should be simplified and lean for focus, or fill it out for the reader's education. I already mentioned that St. Henry II is proof that this isn't a matter of East vs West politics but of Communion of Rome with the wider Orthodox world. It's not like this is a minor duchy or something, but a history-shattering millennium state that did have direct connection and was a sort of gate to the Orthodox world in various dynamics.

Last note: Wikipedia - and Western historians in general - don't seem to have any good "neutral" term for the Pre-Schism Church, particularly early medieval and thus excllising Coptics etc. "Great Church/Early Church" is too antique/Roman (and implicitly includes churches rejected at Chalcedon). "Chalcedonian Christianity" seems to be the common substitute, but feels unwieldy. It's probably not our job to solve that as we report what's consensus, but we should take NPOV seriously. As it stands, excluding the Orthodox perspective (which isn't necessarily "Eastern" either as Western Rite Orthodoxy proves) totally doesn't fit Wiki guidelines in my view. Surely something can be done?

This isn't about token trinkets, but about a plain reality that the "East" sincerely believes that all lands under the Patriarchate of Rome as far as the Icelandic Commonwealth and beyond were fully in Communion until... not 1054 exactly actually, but that's for another day. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't blame Wikipedia; this reflects a general issue, that you have outlined. But the problem is theoretical rather than practical, and so not of much interest to historians, especially English-speaking ones, as Eastern Christianity was so far away from Britain in the EMA (and Rome not that close either). The rare and tenuous contacts that can be traced between EMA Britain & Eastern churches seem to be mostly with Copts anyway. He may be in some calendars, but how much do the EO actually venerate "St. Henry II"? I take it he is not in Greek calendars. My objection to the "rich text" about the Early Modern period is that it is both mystifying and misleading, not explaining that the "official" denomination(s) were decided locally for most of the time. That is the main, possibly the only, thing the box should say. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me preface this by noting the role technology played in the context of all this, both in olden times and today, and also I am not a priest nor even a lay theologian. If I present this wrongly please excuse me and I encourage everyone study this more. East-West relations were strained and certainly not helped by slow communications of the day, which affected even church documentation. As far as I am aware, with virtually no exceptions, by default any Roman Catholic saint before the Schism is ipso facto also an Orthodox one, from major Church Father to obscure Merovingian martyr. A recent modern example is the Serbian Orthodox Church explicitly listing St. Patrick on its synaxis. This seems to be motivated, if I must guess, partly from communications heightened by the internet, or even to disprove the notion Orthodoxy is necessarily Eastern. That doesn't mean he wasn't a saint before or Orthodox couldn't invoke him before, only that he is acknowledged for wide veneration instead of languishing in scholarly records. There are now, as far as I'm aware, a myriad of sites and records of Western saints explcitly listed for Orthodox veneration. A major classic one in the Anglophone internet is the site Orthodox England, which lists non-exhaustively many more obscure Western saints. Including those that probably before the internet, only a few clerics and village grandmothers invoked at all the previous the century. I see no reason where for example, as OE lists, St. Abbo of France wouldn't be considered an Orthodox saint, despite living in a time of Frankish-Byzantine tensions. That's a fault of the fallen world, not of the Church. Even in cases where, close to the Schism, the Western church was doing non-normative liturgical practices, Communion was still not broken.

As for my star example of St. Henry II, even his wiki article states the Patriarchate of Antioch lists him. The source given is a German-Russian site (unfortunately there's still a ton of Orthodox texts left untranslated to English). If I remember right, a year or 2 ago the ROC explcitly listed a lot of pre Schism German saints to be venerated in German parishes. This is about inculturation and pastoral pragmatism, not theological concern. The chest was already in the attic and is just being dusted off, so to speak. Just like even "ethnic" parishes in USA mod and more will mention Western saints like St. Gregory the Great of Rome in services and other functions. To prove it's not just a "Greek thing", but a restoration. Internally, clergy have lamented this misconception and Western saints play a role in mending it.

Please excuse the rambling of course, but I thought this was important context.

If religion for the HRE article must be listed, it should acknowledge in some form, especially since the state was directly involved in the Schism and there are many misconceptions about this era, that until Rome broke communion (but also see the substack I linked, not so simple), in the Orthodox view the HRE was Orthodox, despite political problems. Just like Britain, Spain, etc. I mean, that's the long and short of it. To say it was only "Roman Catholic" in the 800s is to mislead history outside of an explicitly RC view, even if we struggle to find a neat replacement label. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 12:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

P. S. Note there are a few Post-Schism Orthodox Western saints as well like St. John Theristus, which may fit in that article I linked, but this gets into a scope of ecclesiastical matters and I know not what else that I don't feel comfortable speaking on. Again, please take all this with a grain of salt. I just know for sure that from the perspective of the second biggest church in the world, the Latin west was Orthodox until the Pope (of which many pre Schism are venerated) left. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 12:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

History subsection, 3rd paragraph

Towards the end of the paragraph, the pope's name is incorrectly listed as Leo III instead of Gregory II. IvyYorke (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong list of constituent territories of the Crown of Bohemia

Under the "imperial families and dynasties" chapter there is a section enumerating the constituent lands of the Crown of Bohemia as follows: "Bohemia (as well as associated territories such as Upper and Lower Alsatia, Silesia and Moravia)"

Instead of Upper and Lower Alsatia it should probably say Upper and Lower Lusatia.

Also Bohemia could be referred to as the Crown of Bohemia to differentiate it from the Kingdom of Bohemia, but I saw that this idiom is not used for the other composite monarchies so I'm not sure on this one. Shakti1311 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Minor error in description of incorporation of Pomerania

In the section under the Ostsiedlung, there is the following sentence:

From the late 12th century, the Duchy of Pomerania was under the suzerainty of the Holy Roman Empire and the conquests of the Teutonic Order made that region German-speaking.

The first part of this is largely correct but the Teutonic Order was not engaged in conquering the Duchy of Pomerania (which is western part of the region stretching across modern northeast Germany and northern Poland, and is the part that became part of the empire in the late 12th century). There may be confusion here, as the Teutonic Order was definitely engaged in conquering the eastern sections of Pomerania which were never incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire. So the sentence should read closer to:

From the late 12th century, the Duchy of Pomerania was under the suzerainty of the Holy Roman Empire. The easternmost parts of Pomerania, on the other hand, remained outside the empire. 82.37.177.12 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Correction of Capital of the Holy Roman Empire (1220–1254)

Hello,

I noticed an inaccuracy in the article regarding the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during the reign of Emperor Frederick II (1220–1254). The article currently states that Foggia served as the capital of the Empire during this period, but this is not historically accurate.

Correct Information:

During Frederick II's reign, Palermo, located in Sicily, was the primary administrative, cultural, and symbolic center of his rule. While Foggia held significance as a royal residence and administrative hub during certain periods, particularly for logistical purposes during campaigns in mainland Italy, it was never the capital of the Holy Roman Empire.

Key Historical Context:

Palermo’s Significance:

• Palermo held the title Prima Sedes, Corona Regis et Regni Caput of the Kingdom of Sicily. This translates to "First Seat, Crown of the King, and Head of the Kingdom," affirming its official status as the seat of power, site of royal coronations, and capital.
• It was the cultural and intellectual hub of Frederick's empire, hosting his court.
• As the core of Frederick’s Sicilian domain, Palermo was essential to his rule and represented the legal and symbolic heart of his governance.

Foggia’s Role:

• Foggia served primarily as a royal residence and imperial seat, a practical base for Frederick to administer his empire during his conflicts in Italy. Its location made it a strategic choice for coordinating military and political efforts across the empire.
• The Latin inscription on the Palace in Foggia—"Hoc fieri iussit Federicus Cesar ut urbs sit Fogia regalis sede inclita imperialis"—refers to it as a "royal city and illustrious imperial seat." This highlights Foggia's importance but does not designate it as the capital.
• While significant, Foggia’s role was temporary and functional, lacking the permanence, symbolism, and cultural weight of Palermo.

Sources and Revisions:

The claim of Foggia as the capital lacks credible historical support. Similar claims in the Italian Wikipedia article on the Kingdom of Sicily were removed due to insufficient and unreliable sources. Describing Foggia as a temporary imperial seat or administrative hub is more accurate and consistent with the historical evidence.

Suggested Revision:

To avoid misinterpretation, I suggest revising the article to clarify that Foggia, while an important imperial residence and administrative hub, was not a capital, either de jure or de facto, of the Holy Roman Empire. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, It appears that Foggia has indeed been removed from the list of capitals, however, I noticed that Palermo has also been removed, which was not my request. Palermo was indeed the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick II’s reign, this is supported by valid historical sources. I kindly ask for Palermo to be reinstated in the Capital list from 1194 to 1254 with the past listed sources. Thank you once again. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstolfoPannaci: I do not agree that Palermo, which lay outside the empire, belongs as a capital. It may have been the seat of the emperor for a time, but that is because the emperor was also king of Sicily. Indeed, Fogia regalis sede inclita imperialis is much closer to affirming Foggia as an imperial capital than Palermo. But neither was any more than Madrid when Charles V was there. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. While Foggia may have been a significant royal seat (Regalis sede) during certain moments, it cannot be considered a capital of the Holy Roman Empire. A royal seat and a capital are not the same; Foggia was one of several administrative seats Frederick II used, but Palermo was the center of his authority for much of his reign.

As both Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, Frederick’s governance naturally centered in Palermo, where even his imperial court resided. Palermo was not only the capital of the Kingdom of Sicily but also where Frederick conducted significant imperial business. This makes it historically accurate to consider Palermo as a de facto capital during Frederick II’s reign, especially given his unique role as a ruler of two realms. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The comparison with Charles V isn’t useful. The bureaucratic functions of the empire were much more developed and German centered by the early 16th century. Not so in the Tim elf Frederick II. As Davi Abulafia notes in his biography of Frederick II, capitals as a concept are, per se, not a useful concept when considered a peripatetic monarch as Frederick II—similar to Henry II of England. The ‘capital’ was effectively where Frederick was. That said, Palermo had immense status as a city but Abulafia documents conclusively how Frederick rarely resided in Palermo after his return in 1220. The idea of Palermo as the center of Frederick’s government is counter factual, belonging more the conception of his grandfather Roger II if Sicily, who mostly resided in the city. To Foggia is attached more significance, by Frederick’s own decree as has been noted here, as his base of operations in the Mezzogiorno—far and away his preferred ‘seat’ and on of this “places of solace” as Georgina Masson’s biography details. Stupor26 (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Palermo was not just the capital of the Kingdom of Sicily, it was the center of Frederick II’s administration, culture, and imperial ideology during a significant period of his reign, It was the site of the famous Sicilian School of poetry and even after 1220, when Frederick spent more time in southern Italy, Palermo remained a symbolic and administrative capital, where important imperial decrees and cultural advancements originated.

Foggia was indeed a key administrative and logistical hub for Frederick’s campaigns in southern Italy. However, describing it as a "capital" conflates practical necessity with symbolic and administrative preeminence, the title “Regalis sede inclita imperialis,” does not imply that Foggia was an imperial capital. Rather, it acknowledges its importance as one of Frederick’s many royal residences, moreover, Foggia lacked the cultural, symbolic, and enduring administrative role that Palermo maintained throughout Frederick’s reign. Comparing Foggia to Palermo in terms of significance is like comparing a field office to a national headquarters.

While it is true that Frederick, like many medieval rulers, was peripatetic, the idea that "a capital was wherever Frederick was" oversimplifies his governance, Frederick II’s reign was unique because he fused his roles as Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, and Palermo was central to this dual identity. While Frederick’s presence fluctuated, this did not diminish Palermo’s central role. The administrative structures and cultural advancements tied to his reign were rooted in the city, reflecting its continued importance as a de facto capital.

Modern historians recognize Palermo’s unique status during Frederick II’s reign. For example David Abulafia (Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor) and John Julius Norwich (The Kingdom in the Sun) consistently emphasize Palermo's central role in Frederick’s empire, particularly as the symbolic heart of his rule and while Foggia played a significant role in certain periods, its importance was functional rather than symbolic or administrative. Thus, Palermo deserves precedence as a recognized capital during Frederick's reign.

Palermo has long been listed as a capital of the Holy Roman Empire for the period of 1194–1254 in this page and many others. To remove it now without sufficient justification undermines established historical consensus and risks misrepresenting Frederick’s governance. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)