Holy Roman Empire.

Wondering if anyone could clear up my confusion....

1) The 'Holy Roman Empire' is a totally seperate thing from the 'Roman Empire'.

2) 1st Roman Emperor= Julius Ceasar.

If that's correct, here's where I'm confused:

Who was the first Holy Roman Emperor?

I thought it was Charles the first (Charlemagne) but Wikipedia (I know it's not infallible) says it was Otto the first.

Also, when Charlemagne became Emporer why exactly was it called 'Holy Roman Empire' when Charles was German and it didn't please the East (who already had an Empress!?)?

:confused:

Thanks!

Reply 1

Moe Lester

15

1.) Yes, it was different but linked - i.e. the Catholocism governed from the city of Rome and Charlemange's "renovatio Romanorum imperii" which means renovation of the Roman empire

2.)The term "Emperor of the Romans" was bestowed onto the king of Germany - hence Kaiser a combination of emperor and king.

The concept of the Roman Empire was renewed in the West with the coronation of the king of the Franks, Charlemagne, as Roman emperor by the Pope on Christmas Day, 800. This line of Roman emperors was actually generally Germanic rather than Roman, but maintained their Roman-ness as a matter of principle. These emperors used a variety of titles (most frequently 'Imperator Augustus') before finally settling on Imperator Romanus Electus. Historians customarily assign them the title 'Holy Roman Emperor', which has a basis in actual historical usage, and treat their "Holy Roman Empire" as a separate institution. To Latin Christians, however, at that time especially the pope was supreme temporal authority as well as spiritual, and as Bishop of Rome was recognized as having the power to crown a new Roman emperor.

So it can be said a continuation of the Western Roman Emperor - with the Emperor of Byzantine a continuation of the Eastern Roman Emperor

Charlemagne was the indeed the first Emperor, it then falls into haphazard system until (I believe) Otto the First was made the first formal emperor.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that it was through evolution it became various things Roman Empire-Holy Roman Empire-The Imperial Empire-Modern German State .etc. And thus generic terms like Holy Roman Empire are given to it after the date, but not considered to be the case by those at the time....if you get me.

That said I'm not 100% sure about what I have written.

I posted it on the History Soc but it is pretty inactive so I dunno if that will help...

The Holy Roman Empire (although only titled as such much later) started when Charlemagne, King of the Franks and the Lombards, was crowned Emperor of the Romans in 800. The Kingdom of Germany started out as the eastern section of the Frankish kingdom, which was split by the Treaty of Verdun in 843. The rulers of the eastern area thus called themselves rex Francorum, king of the Franks, and later just rex. A reference to the "Germans", indicating the emergence of a German nation of some sort, did not appear until the eleventh century, when the pope referred to his enemy Henry IV as rex teutonicorum, King of the Teutons, in order to brand him as a foreigner. The kings reacted by consistently using the title rex Romanorum, King of the Romans, to emphasize their universal rule even before becoming Emperor. This title remained until the end of the Empire in 1806 (but in this and related entries, the kings are called kings of Germany, for clarity's sake.)

Hmm if you look on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_monarchs
Charlemange is not counted as an emperor...although he was bestowed that title by the pope...I think the kings are his Frankish succesors and if you look Otto is in bold - that is why he is the first "emperor" - I believe Charlemange was crowned emperor de facto, the kings on that list followed and then the Pope needed Frankish support so officially crowed Otto as emperor setting in motion the line of emperors that became known as ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Thus he is described as the first offical emperor.

Reply 2

Tha_Black_Shinobi

17

Ive got a question related to this. If this is the Holy Roman Empire but was actually ruled by "Germans" does this make this empire the first Reich. Secondly Mussolini always referred to his regime as the "third Rome" its obvious who the first Rome is but which is the second? Is it the same "Holy Roman Empire" or is it a completley different Empire that wasn't actually ever ruled from Rome

Reply 3

Magnum Opus

18

Tha_Black_Shinobi

Ive got a question related to this. If this is the Holy Roman Empire but was actually ruled by "Germans" does this make this empire the first Reich. Secondly Mussolini always referred to his regime as the "third Rome" its obvious who the first Rome is but which is the second? Is it the same "Holy Roman Empire" or is it a completley different Empire that wasn't actually ever ruled from Rome

The first reich, yes it was :yy:

The second Rome is the Byzantine Empire, with the head city of Constantinople, considered to be the second Rome.

Reply 4

Moe Lester

15

Tha_Black_Shinobi

Ive got a question related to this. If this is the Holy Roman Empire but was actually ruled by "Germans" does this make this empire the first Reich. Secondly Mussolini always referred to his regime as the "third Rome" its obvious who the first Rome is but which is the second? Is it the same "Holy Roman Empire" or is it a completley different Empire that wasn't actually ever ruled from Rome

Nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire.

Normally, The first Rome was ruled from Rome in the days of the Roman empire. The second Rome refers to when Constantine the Great moved the capital of teh Roman Empire to Constantinople (today Istanbul), the third Rome is used by states that claim ot be succesors to the two Romes .i.e. the Russians used it.

Mussolini was slightly different...he was Italian centric. The first Rome was the non-christian Roman empire, the second one the Papal Rome and the third one...after the creation of Vatican city, the facist Rome. He wanted to expand Italy, much in the same way the Romans had...hence his invasion of Ethiopia, he wanted Italy to rule chunks of the Med....remember this was in the days (albeit waning) of empire.

Reply 5

Moe Lester

15

Magnum Opus

The first reich, yes it was :yy:

The second Rome is the Byzantine Empire, with the head city of Constantinople, considered to be the second Rome.

Yeah but I think in the case of Mussolini I think he was referring to the Papal Rome.

Reply 6

Mr_K_Dilkington

14

First Reich - Holy Roman Empire
Second Reich - 'Deutsches Kaiserreich' or the German Empiure - 1871-1918
Third Reich - National Socialist period.

Reply 7

Magnum Opus

18

Moe Lester

Yeah but I think in the case of Mussolini I think he was referring to the Papal Rome.

I didn't say anything about Mussolini...

Reply 8

Moe Lester

15

Magnum Opus

I didn't say anything about Mussolini...

Yeah I know :biggrin:

but the person who originally raised the point mentioned Mussolini.

Reply 9

Jakko247

2

The first Reich was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire! :p:

Reply 10

Adorno

1

somethingbeautiful

2) 1st Roman Emperor= Julius Ceasar.

Augustus was the first emperor.

Reply 11

Tha_Black_Shinobi

17

Moe Lester

Nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire.

Normally, The first Rome was ruled from Rome in the days of the Roman empire. The second Rome refers to when Constantine the Great moved the capital of teh Roman Empire to Constantinople (today Istanbul), the third Rome is used by states that claim ot be succesors to the two Romes .i.e. the Russians used it.

Mussolini was slightly different...he was Italian centric. The first Rome was the non-christian Roman empire, the second one the Papal Rome and the third one...after the creation of Vatican city, the facist Rome. He wanted to expand Italy, much in the same way the Romans had...hence his invasion of Ethiopia, he wanted Italy to rule chunks of the Med....remember this was in the days (albeit waning) of empire.

thanks. I knew that Constantipole was referred to as the second rome but until you explained Mussolini's claim to be the third rome didn't make sense to me as he was referring to the Old Empires to promote national pride but one of these empires was Turkish. So basically there was only one real Roman Empire. The rest weren't actually Roman or were pathetic excuses for Empires i.e. Mussolini

Reply 12

somethingbeautiful

OP

18

Adorno

Augustus was the first emperor.

Thanks for the correction - I didn't even know there were two guys with practically the same name, damn this is all so confusing!

Reply 13

Moe Lester

15

Tha_Black_Shinobi

thanks. I knew that Constantipole was referred to as the second rome but until you explained Mussolini's claim to be the third rome didn't make sense to me as he was referring to the Old Empires to promote national pride but one of these empires was Turkish. So basically there was only one real Roman Empire. The rest weren't actually Roman or were pathetic excuses for Empires i.e. Mussolini

Well.......one of them was not Turkish, it was the Turks that defeated the Christian Byzantines....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople and then occupied and colonised former Byzantine territory leading to the Turkish State. If you read some of the speeches on the walls of Constantinople they feel very much Roman and believed to be defending the Christian Roman empire.

Okay here is a map of the Roman empire at it's extent - Ruled from Rome

Spoiler

During it's final days it was split in two by the Emperor Constantine (the first Christian emperor) into the West ruled from Rome and the East ruled from Constantinople (today Istanbul).

See map

Spoiler

The West fell and in western Europe the middle ages period began....however the East did not fall until 1453 (just after the end of the Western European middle ages). The Eastern empire has been named by historians as the Byzantines, however the Byzantines themeselves considered themselves Romans (for obvious reasons) and it's neighbours considered them Romans. So whether there was one true Roman Empire is debatable, the Byzantines wouldn't have taken that view.