Talk:Conrad III of Germany
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So far as I can tell from the relatively poor reference books I have in my office (I concentrate on late antiquity and early medieval - I get to the Crusades in my survey classes the way most modern historians get to World War II) Conrad III was king of Rome, but never emperor. I can't find any references to a papal coronation. That could easily be just my books. On the other hand, there's now some content and a more accurate succession. Conrad III was not the husband of Judith of Bavaria, nor was Frederick I Barbarossa his son. Lineal descent mattered for VERY LITTLE in Europe before the 11th century in France and the 12th century everywhere else, which is why HJ's obsession with genealogy is deceiving as well as annoying. MichaelTinkler
Absolutely right: he was elected king of the Romans at Coblenz on 7 March 1138 and crowned as such at Aachen six days later. He was issuing grants as "Conrad, by the grace of God, King of the Romans" as late as 1150, two years before his death (see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1150conrad-corvey.html) - an interesting illustration that he couldn't get away with just adopting the Imperial style unilaterally. I'm going to move him to "Conrad III, king of the Romans" unless anyone has a better suggestion, because there's also a Conrad III of Burgundy. User:David Parker
- sounds fine to me. I thought I was seeing things -- I found references in two narrative histories to Conrad as 'the emperor', but these were certainly not to be trusted. When, out of idle curioisity, is are the Conrads of Burgundy?
Conrad III does appear in a lot of lists as emperor, but they're using it de facto: The other Conrad III appears to be Germany's Conrad II in his capacity of duke (though I can't find a duke Conrad II). Generally, though, I think a territory or equivalent title should always be attached unless rulers have a unique personal surname and ruled different areas of equal status (I think we'll need to have a Canute the Great, to distinguish him from the less great Canutes, though he could be Canute I, counting Harthacanute as Canute II). User:David Parker
[edit] King?
Is the title of king correct? The Holy Roman Empire was started in 846, kind of, but the leader was referred to as the emperor starting with Charlemagne, and continued until the Empire's dissolution in 1806 by Napoleon. I'm not a history buff, but I didn't think there was ever a King of Germany. In addition, there was no state called "Germany" until 1871 when Bismarck founded the German Empire at Versailles. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Clarkefreak ∞ 00:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
HRE started in 800, not 846, with Charlemagne's coronation. In 918, Conrad of East Francia died, and his rival, Henry of Saxony, was made East Frankish King, but he changed the title to "King of the Germans". The title remained as the title Emperors took after being elected but before being crowned Emperor, and they kept after coronation. -Alex 12.220.157.93 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
