Customer Discussions > History forum

Holy Roman Empire


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 67 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 27, 2013 12:21:43 PM PST
It was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire,

Discuss...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 12:23:12 PM PST
8th grade civics is not of interest any more

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 1:00:21 PM PST
Detailed study of the Holy Roman Empire is not 8th grade, though your response definitely is.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 2:20:31 PM PST
sorry

we had it in our 8th grade class
sorry you went to public schools in california

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 2:35:47 PM PST
Debunker says:
Mj,

The horse's behind is not worth responding to. Ignore it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 9:19:10 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Joseph M. Creaney says:

[Discuss...]

I view the Roman Empire more from a religious perspective since I associate it with the crucifixion of Christ. The no good Herod ordered the killing of all male children 2 years old and younger in Bethlehem in an attempt to assassinate the Christ child.

The origins of this empire are mythological with the two brothers Romulus and Remus. Romulus ends up killing Remus which I guess was a horrible portent of things to come for their new country.

The Romans had a mythological story called the Aeneid which was written by Virgil and which I guess picks up where Homer's Iliad leaves off. I believe the Iliad is true but I don't know the history about the Aeneid and haven't read it.

The Romans apparently adopted the mythological gods and goddesses of the Greeks but gave them new names.

To me the Roman Empire is a symbol for a very low point in humanity's spiritual journey. They screwed things up all over the world including Egypt. I'm not sure exactly who was responsible for setting the fire that burned down the library at Alexandria but this is one of the great losses of priceless historical treasures that have ever happened.

Cleopatra was Egypt's last pharaoh and she was one of the most evil and corrupt pharaohs of them all. Cleo collaborated with Mark Antony to screw everything up in Egypt including murdering Cleo's sister. Then they ended up committing suicide.

The Roman Empire produced some of the most sadistic psychopaths the world has ever known such as Nero and Caligula.

We are however eternally grateful to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea for creating the bible. The bible isn't perfect but it's a lot better than the books they threw out during this council.

Although once Christianity became the official religion of the Empire this probably caused other issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2013 3:40:12 AM PST
Debunker says:
You appear to have missed the mark on the discussion point.

By a wide margin.

Posted on Feb 28, 2013 4:57:35 AM PST
One interesting fact is that the H.R.E. actually lasted, (in name only) up until 1806 when Francis II of Austria abdicated as the last Holy Roman Emperor after having his clock cleaned by Napoleon.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2013 5:24:00 AM PST
indeed, starting with the wrong empire to criticise is of course not a good thing to hit the mark :)

Posted on Feb 28, 2013 5:42:53 AM PST
An Austrian diplomat once protested to Napoleon about preserving the integrity of the Holy Roman Empire. Napoleon scoffed, saying that the Empire was like an old barmaid, used to being raped by everybody.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2013 6:49:56 AM PST
Taking the ball and running with it, (since no one else seems inclined to do so) it seems to me that the greatest problem with studying the H. R. E. is the extreme fragmentation of the so-called Empire. It was conceived, I would say, as a secular counterpart to the Papacy, and designed to bring political unity to the Christian West, but fell far short of this goal. The aphorism that you quoted (it was coined by Voltaire I believe) was all too true. I can see studying certain significant eras or episodes within the existence of the H. R. E. like the Hohenstaufens or the Thirty Years War, but overall, I think it was just too much of a mess to be able to look at the entire 900+ years with any coherence.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2013 8:22:24 AM PST
IGS says:
Child,

You must give Francis his due. He hung in there. He did fight the fight the good fight against Napoleon. He fought the longest and the hardest as Napoleon most implacable and dangerous enemy. After a fashion, Archduke Charles became a pretty good soldier.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 4:54:44 AM PST
IGS, yes Francis was persistent and obstinate in his opposition to Napoleon, but how do you explain giving his daughter's hand to Napoleon?

Archduke Charles does deserve recognition for handing Napoleon his first clear cut defeat at Aspern-Essling. (Some might argue that this distinction belongs to Bennigsen, but I would contend that Eylau was a draw.)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 5:19:54 AM PST
Joseph, your not coming back to join in on the discussion?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 7:05:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013 11:31:50 AM PST
IGS says:
Child,

The strategy that set up Asper-Essling was a solid one. The set up was pretty good. It is quite hard to lose when you outnumber your enemy 4:1 so one might argue that it was a botched job. But it might also be argued that he also suffered the greatest loss of his entire military career. The death of his dear friend Marshal Lannes. Competent, irreplaceable, and almost incidental in his death. Of the millions of deaths in those wars, that was perhaps, for him, the worst. But I think that real indicator was the Austrian loss at Wagram, five weeks later, that shows how far the Austrians had come. Savage battle.

As for Eylau, that was ... an indescribable battle. I doubt anyone knew what happen there.

The marriage, a prince must do what a prince must do. I surmise he felt that he had far more to gain from such a marriage than to lose.

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 7:17:27 AM PST
476 ancient Rome fell, it divided into 10 kingdoms/lands throughout western Europe, 538 un-holy Roman empire was offically established

Posted on Mar 1, 2013 10:11:39 AM PST
Intersting repsonces to what I posted.

I have read a book or two on the medieval era and it seems that we look back at the fall of Rome at a date but did the people who lived at the time see Rome as falling just as they did see themselves as medieval. If people at the time didn't see Rome as falling but differeing groups and warlords trying take up the space that Rome had left.

Looking back I did read Boethius who was killed by the Gothic Emporor Theodosious after 500. The Holy Roman Empire from 8th grade was founded by Charleslamage after he conquered much of the territory that Rome was in control of.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 2:42:16 PM PST
patrick says:
Batman!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 8:00:49 AM PST
IGS says:
patrick

Man of Steel!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 10:50:16 AM PST
the emperors used the popes to change the religion by dictate so the emperors could rule better by having one uniform religion they required and both the popes and emperors would enforce laws on the people so they had two ways to control the masses

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 12:32:17 PM PST
After Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527, Pope Clement VII was effectively under his control. As a result, subsequently Clement was prevented from allowing King Henry VIII to divorce Charles's aunt Catherine of Aragon.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 1:00:48 PM PST
many popes were controlled by roman emperors
the price they paid to join with them to mutually seek power and wealth after the rcc abandoned the true church and was forced to adopt pagan practices and make up lies

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2014 11:24:05 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 26, 2014 6:02:23 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2014 11:16:05 AM PDT
Suet says:
"538 un-holy Roman empire was offically established"

What happened in 538?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2014 9:14:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2014 9:28:59 AM PDT
If the mixed-descent Suabian-Italian-etc rulers had adopted Italian as the official language in the 1300s, the "Empire" would still be around today. Last month I was truly surprised/appalled to read that "Suab/Swab" is used as a pejorative term by certain groups today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia

By the way, the Hohenzollerns, Bismarcks and most of the Junker landed aristocracy were of Suabian, not Prussian, origin. According to AJP Taylor

http://books.google.com/books?id=g6zx6hF5DngC&pg=PT7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bismarck described the Hohenzollerns as "a Suabian family no better than mine."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  67
Initial post:  Feb 27, 2013
Latest post:  May 29, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions