The fact that this chaotic entity survived for a thousand years is just amazing

@m.hughmungus121

2 жыл бұрын

When your citizens are mostly illiterate farmers , it's easy to maintain power

@zoomerboomer1396

2 жыл бұрын

@@m.hughmungus121 Not less illiterate than many other big European nations which didn't manage to last that long, so that can't really be the reason.

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

@@m.hughmungus121 Except they didnt, its just that they have less knowledge that our time, doesn't mean they are somehow illiterate

@m.hughmungus121

2 жыл бұрын

@@zoomerboomer1396 maybe not *the sole reason* but it's the tried and true method of keeping people as tax cattle and not critical thinkers who look for change

@fusssel7178

2 жыл бұрын

@@m.hughmungus121 but as our ZoomerBoomer mentioned, it was the same in other nations at the same time (especially since the hre was a very decentralized nation, the different states in it had different literacy rates). What I think is the biggest reason is, that the german people for close to their whole history were always managed in a decentralized way. Multiple germanic tribes, smaller kingdoms, the hre, the german conferderation... The first really centralized unified state came to be in 1871.

I think being cartographer during HRE existence was the worst job during that period of time.

@DaRk5612Fromlv

2 жыл бұрын

it was a punishment xd

@jauregi2726

2 жыл бұрын

On the bright side, there was always work for cartographers.

@miliba

2 жыл бұрын

At least there was demand and thus jobs for this. Better to draw some maps in some monastery than be a simple peasant or soldier

@lhistorienchipoteur9968

2 жыл бұрын

Well... cartography of territories precise borders wasn't a thing during the life of the HRE.

@Jsmith2024

2 жыл бұрын

Not at all: sounds like job security to me!

During the Middle Ages the empire actually functioned quite well and was even the most powerful nation in Western Europe. It was mainly the squabbling between the emperor and the pope which lead to it’s collapse.

@rockstar450

2 жыл бұрын

I believe your missing the grander picture here. The success of the emperor was dependant on the aristocracy and their cooperation was based on what ‘they’ would gain and the alignment with enough of the sub-polities. The success at the time was attributable to enough of the nations aligning their interests rather than a singular state managing things by decree. Fortunately this was the case much of the time but it was an unpredictable mess of a state.

@the_tactician9858

2 жыл бұрын

@@rockstar450 The HRE had to figure out the exact same problems in the High Medieval period as other feudal kingdoms, like France and England, namely 'how can I keep my vassals in line?'. But on top of that, it had to deal with the Pope, and the Pope often worked together with the princes of the HRE. So while France started centralizing during the Hundred Year's War, and England moved towards a prototype constitutional monarchy, the Emperor was busy with a tug-of-war with the Pope and the princes for the remainder of the Medieval Era. This lack of clarity on who was the real boss allowed for the Reformation to not die immediately, which resulted in the devastation of the HRE in the Thirty Year's War. And ever since that period the HRE was basically doomed.

@maxion5109

2 жыл бұрын

@@rockstar450 the HRE built on shared power, consensus and negotation and throughout most of its history this worked surprisingly well. Imperial consensus worked in that it ensured at least a minimum level of compliance with agreed policy, this way the emperor could dispense with the burden of trying to force everyone and ruling directly. The complexity of socio-legal status along the feudal hierarchy necessitated consensus rather than forcing cooperation. Decentralization doesn't automatically imply governance is hampered. Of course, authority nad governance was not monolithic during the centuries and sometimes it enjoyed a more command style approach. The ideal of the HRE as a transnational Christian empire ruling different peoples also helped in fostering consensus and unity because all the particular identities were seen as part of a wider imperial framework. It was not an irregular body or irrelevant to its subjects. Even in its last hours it retained some luster and value as the Habsburgs went to great lengths in keeping Napoleon from seizing the imperial regalia.

@rockstar450

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxion5109 I actually agree with your statement, but from the citizenry I still believe the importance of the HRE is overstated. The office itself even when inactive didn’t really change that much. Compare this to say France or Constantinople it just wouldn’t happen because someone would vie for that position because of its perceived power from the people; not just the nobility.

@jindrichdolejs623

2 жыл бұрын

central europe

As someone who has done graduate work in history, I feel this video is basically skimming over reductive arguments about the HRE's failings from the perspective that the HRE was a failure. It is like you, or your sources, have decided the HRE was not an effective state for what its people were going for, and worked backwards to find examples of its weakness. The whole point was that the various dukes and princes did not want the authority of a centralized state, and that the constitution of the empire helped guarantee security for smaller princes. The famous Voltaire quip should be mentioned in context, Voltaire was a French enlightenment thinker who would've been fundamentally opposed to what the empire represented. This also does really get the point across that the empire had survived for almost 1000 years, and the nature of the emperor and his subjects changed greatly over that millennium. The role that the church had over the empire's policies was also very different at the beginning of the empire than from the end. I guess I just expect more from a channel that has almost a million subscribers to give a more nuanced look at the history being presented.

@pruski6012

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly my thoughts, its a shame really. We have to stop looking at the past thtough our contemporary lenses. Also what kind of question is that? Why the HRE was so dysfunctional - it only shows the underlying bias of the creator from the very beginning and the unwillingness to actually understand why and how the HRE worked

@leblubblab

2 жыл бұрын

Nicely written. Allow me to go even further by saying the HRE was one of the most functional empires ... ever. It withstood countless religious upheavals; numerous reformations and religious wars, the Papal schism and the Investiture controversy, endless infighting and 'civil' wars, the Magyars and, most importantly, the Ottomans, along huge military defeats and massive sieges... events that would have crippled any lesser empire.

@divineanimator8044

2 жыл бұрын

@@leblubblab mongol empire was more stable

@buzzinggz556

2 жыл бұрын

Yup same

@tylerdurden3722

2 жыл бұрын

The real questions are. Was it really Holy? Was it really Roman? Was it really an Empire? Did it succeed in living up to it's name? Or was that a failure?

This is a very strange argument. "Look how dysfunctional this Empire, that lasted a 1000 years, was!"

@juli2august

2 жыл бұрын

It functions very well for hundreds of years. Only former, in the 30-years-war, it become dysfunctional

@NeoZeta

Жыл бұрын

Not an empire.

@Arcaryon

Жыл бұрын

@@NeoZeta It had, in modern terms, Germanic, Italian, Czech and French subjects. That’s an empire. It’s not a massive empire but it IS an empire.

@wertsdsf1162

Жыл бұрын

@@NeoZeta You know, in German, it's called "Reich" which better translates into "Realm" than empire. But the fact, that it had an internationally recognized Emperor should be enough to call it an empire.

@jbo4547

Жыл бұрын

@@NeoZeta thoughts? You've been given 2 examples as to how you are wrong. Whats the response?

The HRE was one of the longest lasting empires in history even though it had a vast amount of powerfull neighbours. While its ability to project power outside of its realm and exert a central authority was at best limited, that is still a great archivement.

@zaneshypers

2 жыл бұрын

it wasn't an empire

@ihl0700677525

2 жыл бұрын

For centuries, HRE was (on paper) the mightiest political entity in Europe, with 3rd largest territory (only behind resurgent Russia and Ottoman empire), the largest population, and by far the largest economy (especially when Northern Italy and the Netherlands were part of HRE). It's just weird how the Germans were unable to truly unite and centralize power when their neighbors, that is the French, the Russian/Slavs, and the Turks all managed to do so.

@maxion5109

2 жыл бұрын

@@ihl0700677525the short answer is they didn't feel the need to. By being a member of the Empire they aldready posessed common bonds and values within a wider imperial framework. Why the HRE often puzzles modern readers is that we've been so accustomed to a linear reading of history consisting of competing nation states tirelessly working towards centralization as if it's a natural evolution. This is an anachronism and it becomes apparent when dealing with an entity such as the Holy Roman Empire that doesn't fit this model at all or at best very poorly. This is what makes the HRE interesting, because it stands out in this regard.

@Cyricist001

2 жыл бұрын

@@zaneshypers It had an emperor that ruled over Slavs, Romans and Germanic kingdoms. It's a textbook definition of an empire.

@AlphaSections

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cyricist001 I know right! that other guy smokes too voltaire to think for himself. The Holy Roman Empire was one hell of an empire. During the time of the 3rd crusade, even saladin, in his prime, expressed great concern over Barbarossa's vast army. It's sad to see people become tape recorders instead of realizing how great the Empire had once been.

Video about the Holy Roman Empire without mentioning Voltaire in the first 10 secs challenge (impossible)

I dont think you are being fair to the empire. You even said why but seemingly did not realize it: „the layout of the empire as a confederation type was tolerable“. Exactly and that is the point. Was the HRE a good tool to achieve Roman Empire like domination of Europe? Maybe at the very beginning but mostly no. But was it meaningless and only continued to exist because no one cared enough to dissolve it? Also no. What it did was to balance the uncountable interests in the region, a massive task in which it mostly succeeded in. All those micro states could have never survived without the imperial protection but with it they did and many flourished and some even became major political players, the Hanseatic cities dominated northern Europe for a time, cities like Augsburg and Nuremberg and their mercantile classes engaged in colonization and had to be considered by Kings and Emperors. I also disagree with you saying that there was barely any sense of unity. Over time it transformed into a German Empire (highlighted by the occasional use of the name Holy Roman Empire of the German nation), so Italy and the Netherlands did not had that sense indeed but the core states definitely had. States like Brandenburg-Prussia, Hannover, Saxony or Bavaria had the power to potentially gain independence, yet they never even tried until the very end, incited by the French. The protestant reformation certainly was a massive strain on all the imperial compromises but they still held for another century, longer than many expected. The thirty years war was kind of the death blow. The population was devastated, the inland trade routes had collapsed, some trade centers in the north where now in Swedish hands, so that the small entities could no longer punch above their weight as they had done before. Additionally France and Sweden were given the right to intervene in the Empire, meaning power was no longer exclusively shared between inner-imperial actors. The imperial ability to guarantee its members independence was not yet gone completely but was heavily compromised, I already mentioned Sweden and France was constantly encroaching from the West as well. Therefore I agree that the Empire was mostly ineffective after the thirty years war but for the most part of its existence it was not bad, it was just different. P.S.: That I heavily focused on the positives does not mean that I think it was perfect or anything, that would definitely not be true either, it is just that the video went all-in on the negatives, so I did not have anything to add there

@paintbarrel

2 жыл бұрын

get this man to the top of the comments for his troubles

@petetheterminator7932

2 жыл бұрын

Finally someone with a founded counter opinion

@cardenuovo

2 жыл бұрын

Nah your initial instinct correct, the peace of Westphalia was basically the end of the empire. The true foundations of it lay in its first 500 years, not sure why he totally skipped through all of it. Its territorial integrity was actually fairly stable compared to most others in europe. At least for the most part/before the Dutch revolt.

@maxion5109

2 жыл бұрын

Agree, this is just plain wrong. Knowledgia should get up to date with modern scholarship on the HRE

@rockstar450

2 жыл бұрын

You are really missing the point of why the HRE was a meme. Their emperor, even in medieval times couldn’t issue decrees and was largely ignored in the background by the majority of states. The union into the German Empire wasn’t a joint confederation of peoples but a political military evolution of the smaller parts which further emphasises the disunity. The HRE was relevant to whoever was emperor at tire time and it was not centralised power, to the point the man made the title rather than the other way around. The legitimacy is sourced back to Otto I who in turn stretched back to Charlemagne (which has more to do with defending the pope than being an emperor). Even when Charlemagne was crowned, he was a frank and his people viewed themselves as did every other component of his empire. The HRE were Germanic turned Germans and I’ll never understand the disrespectful concept of why they’d abandon their own subcultures to bow to a man cosplaying as the Romans their ancestors used to beat up. They were proud and even had their own languages and currencies. Ask yourself, if an emperor of the world came along, would you identify as an earthling? Probably not. Without a centralised identity you’d stay as your national identity.

The HRE wasn't all that dysfunctional, it protected the small and micro "states" within its "borders" for a millennia and outside of inheritance and person unions, it kept much of the "empire" from being annexed while retaining a massive amount of autonomy. It most especially assisted in the prevention of France, Poland, Russia, and the Ottomans from dominating central Europe until Napoleon came about. And Napoleon won almost every fight he was in and yet the HRE itself still gave him numerous amounts of trouble before the Habsburg Empire was proclaimed. The fact a mostly theoretical political entity lasted for so long and was so effective for so long at protecting its rather non-existent borders is a testament to the strength and quality of the HRE. Even beyond such it was the first entity in the world to protect religious freedom, an unheard of tradition to be found in the rest of the world up until the late 1700s, (and it did this by the 1500s) granted that was after a bunch of religious wars, but the fact that it happened in the HRE and not in Russia, Poland, France, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire is a testament to how advanced the concept of the HRE really was. (I am aware Poland/PLC and Ottomans had some forms of tolerance, but that was nothing compared to the tolerance of a religious peace found in the HRE, its quite a unique case in history)

@keizelharf5393

Жыл бұрын

About religious freedom, i believe Cyrus the Great already did that during his reign. Caliphate and some Chinese dynasties (like Tang and Ming) also did that.

@Spartan322

Жыл бұрын

@@keizelharf5393 All nations to a degree tolerate some religious majorities, none, not the Caliphates, Chinese dynasties, and not even Cyrus, tolerated minorities beforehand, the HRE did, now that's not all minorities but there had never before been an institution that both spoke of the moral authority and prevented overt persecution of those who did not strictly adhere to it enmass.

@hoonshiming99

Жыл бұрын

@@Spartan322 About your comment on protecting small states from being annexed by its neighbours through inheritance and personal unions, that’s not true. Much of the Kingdom of Burgundy inside the empire was annexed by France through marriages and personal unions which caused the Kingdom to effectively be disestablished during the 14th century. The same can be said about the Low Countries in the empire which were under personal union by the dukes of Burgundy during the 14th and 15th century.

@Alcoholmixture

Жыл бұрын

@@hoonshiming99 The dukes of Burgundy did not equate to France. The dukes were a branch of the Valois house, and the entities they commanded were pretty much autonomous (the same about the Hanoverian kings and GB. That the kings gained the rulership of GB did not mean that Hanover or Germany conquered GB). Actually, not only the "Netherlands", the Duchy of Burgundy also gained a lot of autonomy in that period. When the House of Burgundy ran out of male heirs, the Duchy returned to France while the "Netherlands" naturally chose a closer bond with the Empire through the Habsburgs (they refused to give Maximilian I of the HRE the money or army to "conquer" back the Duchy of Burgundy because it was never their loss in their eyes in the first place). For the most part MegaCake123 is right. The empire was itself a flexible entity. The imperial lines gained powers through marriages and personal unions with different countries too, and when the "consort countries" changed, the focus of emperors also changed. The Luxembourgs for example built connection with the Eastern kingdoms, certainly they would focus on protecting those territories more.

@hoonshiming99

Жыл бұрын

@@Alcoholmixture The dukes of Burgundy had inherited and formed personal unions over some of the HRE states especially from the Low Countries. By doing so these Low Countries HRE states now answered to the duke of Burgundy not to the Holy Roman Emperor even though they were part of the empire. Also the duchy of Burgundy during this period is an independent state. It did not answer to the King of France nor the Holy Roman Emperor. Thus it disproves MegaCake123 statement about the empire protecting small states from inheritance and personal union formed outside the empire. About your comparison with Hanover, that is a different case. The dukes of Burgundy came from outside the empire which inherited territories inside of it while the Hanoverian kings of Great Britain came from inside the empire which inherited territories outside of it. Plus, the electorate of Hanover at that time despite being part of the empire is not controlled by the Emperor but by the King of Great Britain which severed the emperors control over that state even though the King of Great Britain is also the prince elector of the empire. Because Great Britain is an independent country, the king is not a subject to the emperor. I would say its more similar to the dukes of Normandy and the Angevins which ruled over the Kingdom of England but is under nominal suzerainty to the Kings of France which they paid lip service but ruled independently without the control of the French kings.

Everyone talking about how bad the HRE was, but It still lastet about 1000 years which is quite long for a country...

@zemasterbenb

2 жыл бұрын

It was not a country like we know, it was more like a pre European Union entity and some countries which still exist today have more than 1000 years of existence

@Gokaes

2 жыл бұрын

it was a feudal society and lasted until 1800 so id say it was so successful because it outlasted other similar systems of government

@maxion5109

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gokaes yeah this thing that the HRE was a "failed state" is just a 19th century myth. Virutally all bad reputation comes from the nationalist romantic era

@Gokaes

2 жыл бұрын

it comes from a wrong perspective in modern-day we consider an empire successful if it expanded a lot and was strong, but that is not the same thing as a successful state, a state is successful as long as it prospers and keeps stability which HRE did to an extent that german people were kept from independent in their own small nations which I would argue was the goal of the nation in the first place

@Gokaes

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxion5109 it reflected an era of feudalism where national identity was not a thing and people wanted couple things, Security and Stability, which yes it did nor perfectly bring but the fact that POSITIVES of HRE which is Autonomy of the Princes is considered a bad thing? oh no,

If a state lasts over 1,000 years, I think that's a success story. If the HRE was "dysfunctional", what was a "functional" empire? The British Empire, the lasted about 300 years? The Mongol Empire? If anything, the HRE showed more dynamism than any state since the Roman Empire itself.

@Haroldkd

Жыл бұрын

bullshit, it's only a bunch of Germanic tribes who spend their time at war with each other, incomparable with the Roman Empire which most symbolizes Western civilization

@ayassines5841

Жыл бұрын

It's not about how much It has lasted. That actually isn't amazing but rather the opposite, because It has weakened the germans for so long.

@ayassines5841

Жыл бұрын

But fragmentation has also It's benefits.

@williamrobert9898

Жыл бұрын

lol imagine thinking how long you lasted is what determines whether you were functional or not, kids nowadays.........

@abdullahansari437

Жыл бұрын

@@williamrobert9898 It's one major measrument of functionality yes. That's one more than youve given

This video is brimming with outdated, incomplete and frankly counterfactual information. One: Although it is called the "Holy Roman Empire" these titles didnt all happen at once. Originally it was just the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne, who picked up the Imperial Crown of the Western Imperial Court of the Roman Empire. He neither deemed it Holy, nor Roman. The 'Holy' Part only came into play later as Otto I. got the pope more solidly involved in the coronation process, but never at any point was the Emperor chosen by the pope. The "Roman" part of the name dates back to the love of the Ottonian Dynasty for Italy. The Empire was never designed as a straight up successor to Western Rome of old, that was the Eastern Roman Empire. Two: Apart from Charlemagne, all Emperors and East Franconian (culturally german) Kings were elected by the Nobles of the Empire as a first among equals. This was a genius solution after the carolingian dynasty went extinct in the early 10th century. Five powerful duchies, all with familial ties between each other and to the now dead carolingians had a similar claim to the throne, so they decided to elect one from their number as a first among equals. This is the birth of german federalism, which continues to this day. This video follows the line of argument that successful states and institutions have to work with an overbearing central authority. The Times that the Empire had the most internal strife was when exactly this was trying to be achieved, when the Emperor tried to overreach his position as a Primus inter pares. And he invariably failed, the result being a further emancipation of the Reichsstände from the Emperor. There have been precisely 12 years where Germany was a fully centralistic state, and 40 more in what then became the east. It does not suit germany. And to think that a centralistic state is the one true way to success is harebrained given that the US is a federal state and federal modern day Germany remains as the 4th most powerful economy on earth. Three: The Idea that the Institution of the Empire was the connective tissue that people chiefly identified with. Just no. It's been language first and foremost and from the second half of the 11th century the german speaking princes of the empire formed a political party to differentiate themselves from Imperial Italy, Burgundy and the Emperor. As a political entity with the election of the first and second Kings in 911 and 919 one of the chief concerns of the emperor was to organise the defense of the States against outside agressors, like the Magyars in the 10th century. This effectiveness was only diminished after 10 centuries to the point where an overwheliming tide of revolutionary troops was able to disrupt this pretty stable system. England and France each had more revolutions, rebellions and internal strife than the HRE. In large part because the Empire was never designed as a centralistic entity. As Barbara Stollenberg-Rillinger put it, the Holy Roman Empire was a institution of communication. When communication worked, everything went swimmingly. All Members prospered and the unique regional cultures were able to thrive. Only when the communication failed, like in 1525 or 1618 was the Empire in a serious internal crisis. Dont judge the Empire by the standards of Britain or France. You wouldnt do that for Poland, Italy or India. It is a unique place that found unique solutions to its problems and it worked remarkably well for an incredible amount of time.

@thekingshussar1808

Жыл бұрын

Well put!

Funfact: in Hungarian language, we call it "Német-Római Birodalom" Which means: German-Roman Empire.

@madarapaulista2101

2 жыл бұрын

In portuguese (PT-BR) we call "Sacro Império Romano-Germânico", meaning: Holy Roman-German Empire.

@Hacksuelze

2 жыл бұрын

And in Germany we call it HEILIGES RÖMISCHES REICH DEUTSCHER NATION Yep, classic Germany...

@ikochomi3070

2 жыл бұрын

Fart empire

@andersbjrnsen7203

2 жыл бұрын

Same here in Norway, its the "tysk romerske" ie german roman, empire.

@lhistorienchipoteur9968

2 жыл бұрын

And in France "Saint-empire romain germanique". English is the only language were the "german" part of the name is left, really.

The picture of HRE as dysfunctional came from German nationalists of 18th century. They viewed the empire as obstruction for them to create a national country like the French, British, and Russia. The empire itself was doing well in keeping law and order within its borders. At least mostly. Its feudal members prefered to settle their disputes at emperor's court and later at empire parliament, rather than outright war. The Reformation War was an exception instead of rule.

@kanalisationerstellen

Жыл бұрын

The Reformation war brought Europe out of the medieval in a very good way.

@ShehuStebe

Жыл бұрын

What?? How did they maintain law and order? By just allowing the dozens of Imperial princes and duchies to wage never ending wars against each other? Or was it by allowing foreign governments to intervene in their policies and create deadlock?

I'm halfway into the video & I get the sense that we're using the same factors other countries & empires get praised for as an argument suddenly that this time they were bad: democratic structures, religious freedom, decentralization and so on.

@JohnDoe-gc5lt

2 жыл бұрын

I usually like this guy's stuff, but this one was weak...and kind of wrong a lot.

@johnmorales6281

2 жыл бұрын

While I do agree.... You have to take into consideration how they executed such factors factors like the democratic structure and religious freedom and decentralization With all things considered, one of the most violent wars in human history and destructive, occurred within the Holy Roman Empire and involved different religions

@johnmorales6281

2 жыл бұрын

Also on top of that, with the whole decentralization and the amount of different principalities and counties and duchies is cool and all like the 50 states.... It's a lot different when some of those States or in their case, Duchies and principalities exist in and out of the realm it's a big problem The decentralization is not bad but when it looks like that hell no

@gabrieldossantos1116

2 жыл бұрын

Well, if there have gone all out on these ideas maybe they would've survived. The problem was not a decentralised government, but a government that have next to no "constitutional" legal power over his vassals and had to rely on share military might to scare them off or massive bribes and favors to pass even the smallest amount of legislation. I mean, Prussia literally declared war on Austria, a fellow member-state AND personal holding of the Imperial family, during the Succession Crises and the Emperorship couldn't do a thing about it, thats how broken it was

@johnmorales6281

2 жыл бұрын

@@gabrieldossantos1116 For a smaller scale and a little bit more familiar example or comparison... The preconstitution United States. At that time the States were the ones regulating their own trade, had their own military and laws. The US Central government barely had power to levy any taxes and had very minimal military forces and would have to rely on the states militias to aid them assuming the state would volunteer any troops. Being that there were obvious differences in culture and other factors between the North and South, confederation would never have worked

There are many mistakes in this video, the electors ALWAYS elected the kaiser (German for ceasar), only in the 13 hundreds it was enscribted into a law (goldene Bulle, the oldest constitution in europe). This was based on a germanic tradition called ting (gathering), were all the tribes elected a master chieftain, to protect them from foreign powers. It also wasn't ineffective until the end of the 30 years war, 1648, as Germany was destroyed and 33% of population died. It lasted 900 years, created some of the most modern law systems (magdeburger law is still basis of some European cities like Prag f.e.), decided about what are kingdoms (early history of poland) and to some extend influences Europe until today (look how the European commission is selected...very similar like in HRE), it's maybe difficult to understand or complex, but I wouldn't call it ineffective

@randomrazr

Жыл бұрын

o relly

*I swear if I see that cringe Voltaire qoute here just one time*

@ZeroScotland

7 ай бұрын

*Not Holy, Not Roman, or an Empire*

@joshuasepeda3289

Ай бұрын

Neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire.

It lasted for roughly 1000 years, they must have done something right?

Wow there's a ton of bad history here right off the bat. The Popes didn't choose the Emperors nor did they request the Emperors to be elected. This video is just adding to the common misconceptions of what the HRE was.

I don't see why the HRE is "dysfunctional". Sounds like it was a decentralized union that maintained peace among the largest population in Europe for nearly a millennium. How is that dysfunctional?

@Tonixxy

2 жыл бұрын

Did you watch the video? They had a 30 year war over religion among other things, and when a serious centralized power attacked (France) it ceased to exist. It was in safe position in the center safe from Mongols, Muslims etc.

@12tanuha21

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tonixxy because Sweden and later France joined the conflict between Bohemia and Habsburg

@Cyricist001

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tonixxy France was centralized before, the HRE defeated them. The only new thing here is that Napoleon had two important factors - conscription and nationalism. The other monarchies depended on semi-professional armies that had to be payed, Napoleon could simply raise as many soldiers as he wanted, and replace his losses faster thanks to the motivation of nationalism. The moment other adopted Napoleon's total war ideas, France lost.

@Tonixxy

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cyricist001 lol no, the moment he lead 1 million strong army into Russian winter he lost. No one could match him on the filed before he lost his most experienced men.

@Cyricist001

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tonixxy The Grand Armee was only half a million and it was composed to a large part of conscripted peoples. One notable example was the conscripted Prussians who when ordered to shoot the Russians turned around and opened fire on the French. While Napoleon's defeat in Russia was the turning point, he wasn't finished, not by a long shot. What changed is how his foes approached warfare.

I would rather live in medieval HRE, than France, or England

@MrMajsterixx

Жыл бұрын

You can - Kingdom come deliverence, hello from Bohemia.

The Holy Roman Empire brought peace, stability, security and prosperity to a huge area. But because it is called Roman, you say it's a "weak" attempt to resurrect "what once was"? If they had any other name maybe you would have seen what actually existed.

@AjaxNixon

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, lol. Objectively a very effective empire. It's ironic that in empire there was less government centralization than in modern democracies

@hohenstaufen2345

2 жыл бұрын

@@AjaxNixon thats just Feudalismus. There were times were the Empire was more centralised than France

@julianshepherd2038

2 жыл бұрын

@@AjaxNixon not given the small amount the state did then. Mostly war and rich folk showing off

@1991beachboy

2 жыл бұрын

Stability and security? They had so many quarrels with each other inside the HRE that i'd hardly call it either

@hohenstaufen2345

2 жыл бұрын

@@1991beachboy that was every Country back then. Thats not special for the HRE. That was just Feudalism in general.

Kind of feels ahead of its time, like a version of the eu before mass communication and education. A framework that provided a floor, but let everyone do their own thing within the structure. All of thr good parts of competition, while removing most of tge bad.

@faultier1158

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah. It provided stability and protection for its members without relying on conquest and slavery as a basis of its economy (unlike the original Roman Empire, the British Empire, and even the USA). Many important scientific discoveries & developments happened in Germany during the time of the HRE.

The decentralization part was great. Responsibilities were more localized. People were more autonomous. For the most part it worked great. The fact it lasted so long is proof.

Nothing says how objective and well researched is something than start with unironically quoting and parroting opinions of its political rivals and enemies. One with any knowledge and specially with name like Knowledgia should know history is written by the victors and in this case its centralised absolutist states like France and not HRE. One wouldnt use quotes of Romans about German barbarians as accurate 100% unbiassed description but would take into account both the cultural and political lens thru which Romans look at barbarians and also at who's behest and for who's consumption Roman authors wrote such report about Germans. But when it comes to HRE we unabashedly judge it according both our current opinions and views how things should be and the highly politicised views of HRE contemporary competitors and opponents. Its situation not unlike vids about current politics or e.g. EU- the truth and facts and actual actions and opinions of involved ppl( like Europeans in case of EU) are often less important than opinion of the author whats the correct policy and correct way how to do things and how something should look like.

@cardenuovo

2 жыл бұрын

Totally agree. It was decently capable of defending itself from neighboring kingdoms and managed to lasted 1000 years uninterrupted, despite its decentralization. The microstates’ autonomy also allowed for more freedoms and less state oppression compared to elsewhere in europe. I’d even go as far as saying its confederate nature was the key to its longevity. Every empire has its own unique form of functioning. The video claims it was a failure simply because of weak authority, then even goes as far as implying that the electing of its emperors was a strange/bad thing. What kind of logic is that? 😂 What happened to democracy and liberty? Lol

@hexlermino3455

2 жыл бұрын

Firstly, the quote is one of the most well known descriptions of the HRE. Secondly, the quote relates to the subject of the video (the disunity of the HRE). Thirdly, the quote accurately described the HRE at the time Voltaire made it. Finally, just because the quote isn't completely unbiased, doesn't mean it cant be useful. By the time of the quote, the HRE had little connection to the Papacy (the Emperor had not been crowned by the Pope since Charles V in 1530), no connection to the city of Rome or it's Empire, and was a weak confederation held together by indifference, both of the Emperor, his nominal subjects, and even most foreign powers. I too disagree with how the video portrays the HRE, it ignores the first couple centuries in favour of it's later years, this video is not that useful an introduction into the history of the HRE, and it has many errors throughout, this video is most certainly of poor quality.

While we appreciate the history, the framing here seems unnecessarily reductionist, even given your short time frame. You seem to suppose that the Empire either had total control or was worthless. Perhaps it served many functions -- as an ideal, for one -- in the light of the times, so going back in time, anachronistically, like an efficiency expert doing a time study analysis of a factory floor process, isn't as insightful a take as it might first appear.

"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse." -Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

@YasserMaghribi

2 жыл бұрын

Is there something implied behind this phrase ?

@papazataklaattiranimam

2 жыл бұрын

3 Italic 1 Germanic

@captainbackflash

2 жыл бұрын

God would not listen, women would laugh at him, only the horses would do good work!

@NathanS__

2 жыл бұрын

There's no record of him saying that. It's also attributed to Frederick the Great

@captainbackflash

2 жыл бұрын

@@NathanS__ And still, the result stays the same!

Ahh we can’t have a HRE video without the Voltaire quote.

Meanwhile the Eastern Romans are looking over like: “bruh..”

When Brandenburg and Saxony are separated from what would later become Germany: *Déjà vu, I've just been in this place before*

This is such a cynical take on an important institution, totally misunderstood by modern “academics”

@unitedkingdomofengland2010

2 жыл бұрын

So true it like this channel has something against the holy Roman empire

@Zach-mw5so

2 жыл бұрын

@@unitedkingdomofengland2010 I knew it was going to be like that when they oh so wisely quote Voltaire, a man whose value was to heap scorn on people and things that had value.

@DaDa-ui3sw

Жыл бұрын

@@Zach-mw5so what do you even know about Voltaire aside from this quote lol

In short. It's the Medieval equivalent to the EU today.

@scorpionfiresome3834

2 жыл бұрын

@MI6 no, just feudal

@scorpionfiresome3834

2 жыл бұрын

@MI6 It more or less the best we have. No different than the best they had at their time.

"How much border gore do you want?" "Yes"

It had very negative aspects (witch craze, Thirty Years' War ...) but also very remarkable, progressive aspects (Gutenberg, Leibniz, Gauß, Kant, Goethe, Mozart, Beethoven, Dürer, Gothic architecture ...). The existence of many competing principalities was beneficial to the development of science, technology, and art.

Hi There! It was a wonderful and interesting video.That's because,it shared many new ideas about Roman Empire. Thanks.

"why?" proceed to look at its map "oh, now i see it"

Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy nor Roman, however it lasted for at least 1000 years.

And yet, it survived for almost a thousand years (more, if you count Charlemagne's coronation in 800 as the start). A thousand years is longer than: - The Persian Empire, - Alexander's Empire, - The Roman Empire, - The Mongol Empire, - The Spanish/Portuguese/French/Dutch (and other colonial) empires, - The British Empire. ... It pretty much outlived almost every other empire. I don't know about you guys, but I call that functional.

@hoonshiming99

2 жыл бұрын

Have to disagree about the Roman Empire. The eastern half survived until the late medieval period so it’s more than a thousand years.

@paprskomet

2 жыл бұрын

It definitelly did not last longer than Roman Empire man.Not to mention that Roman empire lasting from 30 BC(if counted from Octavian becoming sole ruler over Roman world)to 1453(fall of eastern half of the Roman empire) was actual empire in classic sense.Holy Roman Empire lasted so long among main reasons directly because of how decentralised and loose entity it was.If it was actual Empire in classic sense it would be much harder to exist for so long.And yet-actual Roman empire did succeded in it-even in spite of Holy "Roman" Empire.

@eternal_riftz8801

2 жыл бұрын

@@paprskomet 27BC-1453

@paprskomet

2 жыл бұрын

@@eternal_riftz8801 what exactly did you not understand on how I defined?I wrote it like that exactly from that reason that if I would not do that someone will try to "fix me" with year 27.Octavian was factual sole ruler since 30 BC,in 27 he only accepted special name(consequently title)of Augustus which moment is artificially used by modern historiography as orientation marker.

@eternal_riftz8801

2 жыл бұрын

@@paprskomet 27BC-1453 and also you don't think "Holy" "Roman" "Empire is a empire?

Ironically, the HRE ended up as such a disfunctional mess due to the same reason that caused the West-Roman Empire to become such a disfunctional mess during its last centuries: Everyone was more concerned about their own powerbase than they were about the Empire.

surprisingly England never thought "oh, the HRE is collapsing? better get in on the spoils!"

@Loneguy22

2 жыл бұрын

Considering what had happened during England's last attempt to grab land on Continental Europe it's not very surprising at all. Also look at the year when the HRE was dissolved. There had been two attempted rebellions in Ireland by 1803, also the English were still trying to figure out how to relate to the newly formed United States. F Suffice it to say they had enough domestic trouble to occupy them for a while. Furthermore the aftermath of the French revolution and Napoleon's rise made everyone nervous.

@lesdodoclips3915

Жыл бұрын

Why would they? The whole point of the British empire was to not waste time grabbing significant land in mainland Europe, because it ties britain down to European wars.

You literally only talk about the Empire under the Habsburgs. Why do you not talk about its golden Age und the Hohenstaufens. Were it was more centralised than France. Also it had a Capitol in Aachen witch was the simbolic Capitol of the Reich. Were the Emperor lived was not the capitol, it was called the emperors residence. It was holy because if you would look at the Real Empire you would know that Emperor Barbarossa declared that that Emperor is Gods Ruler on Earth. Back then that was seen as legit even by Suleiman. Roman because 1: it owned Rome. 2: it was seen as a New Wstern Roman Empire. And Empire if you would look at the idk 500 YEARS bevore the Habsburgs ruled. When Suleiman heard that the holy Roman Empire under Barbarossa was on its way he said "Allah I beg you let me fight 10 Richard and Phillipes but dont let the Germans reach me" this shows that the Empire was feared and the undisputed Hegimon of Europe. "It even deveated the Mongols in Austria". If you really like history then look at history not at the funny memes because Videos like this insult people like me. The Empire was the golden age of my people. And if you say your funny: NeItHeR HoLY RoMAn Or EMpIrE its not funny you are just a retard who does not know shit about history

@martinsokute9882

2 жыл бұрын

Did you not read the title of the video

@hohenstaufen2345

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinsokute9882 i did. It says why it was so disfunctional but he never says that it was once better. He only talks about how Holy Roman And Empire as a title is a joke. The entire Video is made so it feels like this is the only sate that the Empire was in was disfunctional. If you make a Video about the Problems and Fall of an Empire you should always mention that it was better once. Or it just becomes an insult to people

@MrSlapjack2007

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly if your personally offended by this you should seek some therapy.

@hoonshiming99

2 жыл бұрын

@@hohenstaufen2345 To be fair, although the Hohenstaufens brought the empire at its height in the 13th century, it was certainly not stable nor centralised. There’s a lot of internal conflicts in the empire especially between them and the Welfs. Their rule to solidify the power of Emperor came at a cost of decentralising and weakening the Empire even further. At one point, they split the old duchy of Saxony into various smaller entities to deprive their rival Welfs from becoming powerful. The Golden Bull of Sicily signed by Frederick II saw Bohemia elevated to Kingdom status which gave it plenty of autonomy within the Empire. This has drastic consequences later during the Great Interregnum where Bohemia under Ottokar II dominates the other princes of the Empire which causes a massive internal war between Bohemia and the various german princes led by Rudolf of Hapsburg.

@hohenstaufen2345

2 жыл бұрын

@@hoonshiming99 Of course. Those things you say are normal for Feudal states. What i meant was, it was well centralised for a Feudal state. Witch is not that mutch to be honest. And yes the Hohenstaufen did a lot of fighting in the Reich itself. But still the weakness of the HRE is unbelivably overexagurated nowadays. Thats why i posted that comment in the first place.

Just a little detail... Lion with two tails was symbol used only in Bohemia and it is still a state symbol of Czechia. Habsburgs and Palatinate had its own regular lions with one tail.

You'd think nationalism would centralize the HRE cause everyone was German but no. I don't know how Bismark figured out how to unite the Germans.

@spider-mv6442

10 ай бұрын

Perhaps the welfare state had something to do with it...

>open the video >dumb quote from a pseudo intellectual who understood nothing >close the video

*Ah, yes: the Unholy Germanic Mess.*

Using the Voltaire quote for the entire Empire shows your knowledge or lack thereof for this empire or atleast lack of understanding. If you use the Voltaire quote to point at the end to the decline it is kind off tolerable but the quote has always been stupid and wrong.

At the end of the day, it did last a thousand years. So I don't know how dysfunctional it could have really been.

Nicely informative video.

There were around 1000 entities in the HRE alone, much only consist of one city, the Free Imperial City

Fun fact: We kept a few of these independent territories with the princes after Napoleon was defeated. They later joined the German Empire and although not fully independent anymore, the Kaiser was *never* Emperor of Germany but German Emperor and King of Prussia. Just as Franz II. was (the last) Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria. After WWII the allies and most of all the Americans messed the country up a bit and formed new semi-independent states by just glueing a few together and erasing Prussia and its territories. These are today's federal states in Germay

another solid video!

Nicely explained.

0:54 Very flattering map, to me as a German of (East) Prussian descent at least, though the northeasternmost territory shown here did not belong to the HRE, but to the (aligned) Teutonic Order. No part of Prussia (or what would later be called East Prussia) belonged to the HRE as far as I remember. The monk knights obviously answered to the pope in case of doubt, and not a secular power, which was arguably subordinate to the pope in Rome anyway.

@hokton8555

2 жыл бұрын

also Savoy & Tuscany were offically part of the HRE until the end

@NathanS__

2 жыл бұрын

The Teutonic State was a fief of the Empire and while they did work with the papacy, the Order was far more politically and militarily connected to the Empire.

@lhistorienchipoteur9968

2 жыл бұрын

@@hokton8555 Not after the italian wars I thought.

@hokton8555

2 жыл бұрын

@@lhistorienchipoteur9968 they were still part of HRE until 1801/06 but were ed facto independent similar to Switzerland until 1648

@peterszeug308

2 жыл бұрын

@@NathanS__ Would they have joined a Holy Roman Emperor campaigning against the pope when asked for it? Would they have answered the pope's call for help when under attack from a Holy Roman Emperor? There would have been conflicting loyalties for sure in such a case, but the latter seems more probable to me.

In German it’s not called an Empire. It’s called „Reich“ which would better be translated with realm. The German word for Empire would be „Imperium“, same as in Latin.

@zyanego3170

2 жыл бұрын

We Germans also call Empires usually Reich. For an example we call the Roman Empire "Römisches Reich"

@lhistorienchipoteur9968

2 жыл бұрын

Reich in German means BOTH "state with a large territory" and "state govern by an emperor". And the word "empire" in english can also be used in those two senses, it's just less frequent.

@faultier1158

2 жыл бұрын

Also, the HRE used Latin in official documents - the name was Imperium Romanum (later Sanctum Imperium Romanum).

@garrettfuhrman2549

Жыл бұрын

“Reich” has many meanings, not just Realm. It means Empire as well, and also Rich or affluent, so context is important. In “Frankreich” it most likely means “Realm of the Franks (French)” but in “Romanisch Reich” it most definitely means empire, so Germans definitely referred to the HRE as an Empire.

Really enjoy your videos! Thank you!!!

What is the name of that epic song at the middle of the video? Could you share the title please?

This angered the Emperor's father, who punished him severely.

Say what you will about the HRE, but you cannot deny the massive economic foundation that it left behind for the German Empire and the states that are culturaly related to it.

European during Caesar's conquest: We will never submit to rome! European during middle age: We are successors of the Roman empire!

@emib6599

Жыл бұрын

Sometimes is wise to simply admit that your enemy had some good ideas and trying to imitate it.

No internet. Why is the modern world so dysfunctional? The internet.

You're mixing up multiple events and border changes in time. For instance: Napoleon did NOT participated in the conquest of the Netherlands. And you're spelling "Württemberg" on the map wrong too. It's not "Wurttenburg". (I feel like english-speakers are mixing up "berg" and "burg" a lot. Is it just me ?)

@234zuscoutjango9

2 жыл бұрын

It's actually _Württemberg_ it's an _m_ not an _n_ and the ü has dots above it

@lhistorienchipoteur9968

2 жыл бұрын

@@234zuscoutjango9 sry, mixed with the french spelling up

Real quick, Charlemagne was dubbed the "Holy Roman Emperor" by the pope for conquering Rome, but he was the head figure of the Kingdom of the Franks, not the Holy Roman Empire (Which wouldn't be founded till the 10th century). Otto I was the first real Holy Roman Emperor as he formed the actual empire after he conquered Rome

@egedogutan2277

2 жыл бұрын

Omg

3:08 take a moment by looking at this. Within HRE it just looks like a jigsaw puzzle. So confusing.

Short answer: It was not dysfunctional. There's a reason why it existed for a thousand years.

It's funny how the people that once fought rome tried to revive it

@MrSlapjack2007

2 жыл бұрын

A lot of prestige comes with Rome.

“Servitude of any sort is distasteful to all men, but especially objectionable is subjection to others in the case of those who ought to rule.” ― Ulrich von Hutten,

@ylh2019

2 жыл бұрын

Funnily enough, Ulrich von Hutten is an Ultra Rare Battleship in Azur Lane.

You could say that the Emperor have a HREctile Dysfuctional

Wow, that's incredible!!

But, what really is interesting, the so "dysfunctional" empire lasted for about 1000 years!

ufff why is so much wrong here? What a mix from bias and lacking research

I swear if someone quote Voltaire, i'll flip!

I think the extreme decentralisation of the HRE wasn't a weakness per se, but actually its greatest advantage for longevity. True, such great fracturement made it difficult to have any meaningful strategy at all, in pretty much anything really. But that also made it nearly impossible for outside forces to meaningfully influence the HRE. Also annexing it by military force was a tough one. Every single count and prince and king had his own soldiers and there was no real capital or actual leader to target for an decapitation blow to the entire empire. A great help surely was also that the common poeple of the HRE spoke very similar languages if not the same mostly. That made the fracturement not as big of a problem as it was in the late stages of the original Roman empire.

it is to as Dysfunctional as me lol

So you´re asking a Frenchman about sth. German ?? What could possibly go wrong.... 😉 this hatred by Voltaire is pure nonsense. the HRE has been stabilizing europe for a thousand years, borders changed only little during that time in middle europe.

Amazing! Fascinating! I’m going to bye a HRE flag right now for my room

Picturing HRE trying to hold on to France while distracted for a moment by Austria. And Austria is just like"What ev'" but France is already on to the next.

The Napoleon was responsable for the dissolution of two of the oldest states in Europe: the Republic of Venice in 1797 and the HRE in 1804.

@las_espannas

Жыл бұрын

HRE in 1806.

Just because it wasn’t a centralized empire Doesn’t mean it was ”bad”

@spider-mv6442

10 ай бұрын

Right! Nothing wrong with a little decentralization

Links for the music please?

So disfunctional it lasted for thousand years. *Laughing in High German*

@Adriano70911

Жыл бұрын

No neighbors from north and south. Poland always at war with Russia. So France was the only enemy

@Lu-.-

Ай бұрын

​@@Adriano70911Hungary, Denmark, France, Norman Italy, Byzantine Empire, Poland...

Man I'm just so facinated by HRE, if anyone knows a good book on its history please recommend it I would love to read it.

@NathanS__

2 жыл бұрын

Peter H Wilson's Heart of Europe/ The Holy Roman Empire.

@Malikin

2 жыл бұрын

you will need to buy it before lovingly read it.

@pooyahimself7961

2 жыл бұрын

@@Malikin okay!? Did I mess up my grammer or something? Maybe I should've said I would like to buy it?

It wasn't. It lasted 1000 years. The HRE was a center of art and culture. It was the place where the printing press was invented and where the Reformation started. It didn't cause two world wars like the United Germany. Its one major conflict-- the 30 years war-- was caused by an unwanted attempt by the Austrians to centralize authority and impose Catholicism.

@CCP-Lies

7 ай бұрын

The Holy Roman Empire protected micro states and many kingdoms from being invaded by foreign powers

What's the name of the background music?

@mgibula84

Жыл бұрын

Deskant - Sins of the Fathers

Ah yes, the unholy Barbaric confederation

Why is America so dysfunction... up next.

Great video! I would just say the HRE was indeed Holy roman and an empire at its beginning. But rapidly declined. Roman as it was considered the successor to Rome. It was holy as the pope chose the emperor. And it was an empire before it collapsed into smaller states ( under Otto the great it was still pretty united inder the emperor)

@romaboo6218

2 жыл бұрын

Byzantium be like

@padinspi11

2 жыл бұрын

@@romaboo6218 "angry greek noises"

@fakeskyler2305

2 жыл бұрын

@@romaboo6218 Greek Pretenders

@romaboo6218

2 жыл бұрын

@@fakeskyler2305 Eastern roman empire was the true succesor to Rome

@fakeskyler2305

2 жыл бұрын

@@romaboo6218 Eastern Roman Empire? More like Easternish Greek Bureaucracy

could you do a video about the vietnam war?

OMG SO EARLY!!! ALSO BIG FAN!!

Let's not ignore that the HRE often defeated the French (allied to the Ottomans), Napoleon is a special case since he had the benefit of conscription and nationalism to wage a total war, while the HRE used semi-professional armies that were basically a monarch's private army - not cheap and hard to replace. The moment other nations also started to conscript soldiers who were motivated by nationalistic fervor, France lost. It's not that the HRE was ineffective, it did it's job admirably for a millennia, the problem arose with a new aspect of mass warfare (especially artillery) which lasted until the invention of the hydrogen bomb. If by some chance the HRE dodged the Napoleon bullet, it would have been a model nation by todays standards, superior to the EU.

@DaDa-ui3sw

Жыл бұрын

Ridiculous points.

You could also ask:"Why was it so strong when it actually functioned?"-example: Friedrich Barbarossa

@Boretheory

2 жыл бұрын

Barbarossa got beaten by some Italian cities though and he was the emperor :/ . I would say that generally the Italian part weakened the Hre forcing the emperor to constantly fight against the Italians and the pope.

@AnimeFan-dl4qd

2 жыл бұрын

@@Boretheory Sure one Italian campaign was bad but the other one was pretty successful in surpressing the turmoil. Also the Italian part gave the Empire much needed funds or else they would not have bothered with it. At the end, Barbarossa was able to muster a big army which terrified Saladin-even if it did not arrive:)

And yet, the HRE is one of the most powerful entities in EU4

@Cyricist001

2 жыл бұрын

It must be to last sandwiched between France, Ottomans, Sweden and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Russian Empire.

Francis the second kept the crown itself though!👑😂

Still lasted more than 800 years.

While religious freedom and other policies were definitely ahead of this day in the HRE always remember that 1 of the most destructive and violent wars happened within the Holy Roman Empire and it involved different religions. Not to mention, the decentralized "empire" is cool in theory but when countries exist within and outside the relm....it's not gonna work

@faultier1158

2 жыл бұрын

It did work though. And yeah, the 30 years war was extremely bad as far as wars go, but other long lasting empires had a lot of civil wars during their existence as well.

@johnmorales6281

2 жыл бұрын

@@faultier1158 true it did work past it...but I don't think any of them as a singular war was more destructive or as long...the HRE is such a conundrum

What the Western Europeans never get that in order for one monarch to be proclaimed as the Imperator, it is usually done with the help of the military. Those soldiers often proclaimed their generals and commanders as the new Imperators whenever it is suited them when they are not satisfied with some stuffs and policies made by the Senate.

I think the "roman" thing is the fact that its claim as THE roman empire was contested for most of its life by the eastern roman empire which unediably had a much stronger claim to the roman empire title than the HRE

The Non-Holy Germanic Mess

“It was an Unholy, Germanic, Confederation!” - Voltaire, probably

Almost nothing is said about before decentralization. Nothing about the Investiture Controversy, nothing about emperor Frederick Barbarossa, nothing about emperor Charles IV. And also Austria is pictured with large borders too soon, there were the Lands of the Bohemian Crown and there was no Austrian Empire until 1804.

I read that the facto the "Kingdom of Italy" (One of the entities of the HRE) was actually independent and any attempt to rule It by a german emperour failed (for istance, Barbarossa vs the Lombardic League). In Italy the phenomenon of the cities-states was very common.