Talk:Kingdom of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Kingdom of Germany is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Last King of Scotland

There is a difference between claiming that one is King of the Germans and that a Kingdom of Germany existed. If no verfiable reliable source is given that the Kingdom of Germany existed as a functioning state (to use the modern expression), along the lines of contemporary France, Denmark or England, this article should either become a redirect or this article should be moved to King of the Germans and an explanation that this was an assumed title by abc-xyz. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can squibble about the name all day long but the Kingdom clearly existed. To somehow link this to Idi Amin is bizarre. Str1977 (smile back) 10:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was to make a point, Amin calimed to be the King of Scotland. Just because he claimed it, does not make it so. If the Kingdom of Germany existed then there should be lots of references to it. Which do you think is the best source that can be used as a reference? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That a Kingdom existed can be found in any textbook on medievel history. Regarding your point, while Idi Amin claimed to be King of Scotland he never ruled there. On the other hand, the most difficult thing about this Kingdom is the title: most of the rulers never called themselved anything like "King of Germany" - the prevailing title would be "King of the Romans". However, that doesn't change that the Kingdom existed. Str1977 (smile back) 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Which English language text book?

A Google search on the string returns very small samples:

  • about 29 English pages for "Kingdom of Germany" site:edu
  • 12 English pages from ac.uk for "Kingdom of Germany" -- most of those seem to reference Gillingham, J., The Kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages (900-1200) (London, 1971).

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think is the best source that can be used as a reference? I don't know, what the best source for the existence of the Roman Empire? But it seems like you've found your reference anyway. I'll just add it. Srnec 18:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a reference because has not been used as one. You have made large changes to this page [1] what did you use as a source? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced and cited. It is taken for granted by many authors that a kingdom of Germany existed in the Middle Ages. Why else all the references to kings of Germany if there was no such kingdom? Srnec 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the sources that you cited? If you did why did you not add them when you add then when you made large changes to this page [2] --Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I read them! How else did I find out the information (w/ enumeration) that they contained? I didn't add them originally because I thought the existence of the German kingdom was textbook stuff. Srnec 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

From a German point of view "kingdom of Germany" sounds almost bizarre. When I first saw this (in a discussion about whether Mozart was German or Austrian) I thought: that is the kind of thing only someone who has no idea of German history would say; he just doesn't know that noch such thing like a "kingdom of Germany" existed. Then I was surprised to find out that there is this book by Gillingham; I know neither the book nor the author. Philip Baird Shearer is right in pointing out that you find very few references to "kingdom of Germany", and that most of those you find have some connection with Gillingham's book. My daily work has to do with German history, I work in a historical library, and I constantly read books and other texts that have to do with German history. I dare say that I've never encountered "Königreich Deutschland" or "Deutsches Königreich" in German texts, and I cannot remember to have seen "kingdom of Germany" in English texts, either (except the reference to Gillingham, of course). It is certainly true that Heinrich I. is usually called the first German king (as opposed to earlier and contemporary tribal kings) and I concede that simple logic should lead one to deduce that there must also be a "kingdom of Germany". But I tell you: no German historian uses such a phrase. You will not find "Königreich Deutschland" or "Deutsches Königreich" in any German universal dictionary, encyclopaedia or dictionary of historical terms (I checked). Unfortunately I am not an expert in mediaeval history, but from all I know the avoidance of the phrase has to do with the kind of rule Henry and his successors exerted. German historians use the term "Personenverbandsstaat", meaning that the early German kings ruled by virtue of the dukes' etc. allegiance to them. That is very different from a modern "Flächenstaat" that comprises a defined territory which is administrated by a king or other governmental body. There was no territory that could be called "German kingdom"; symptomatic of this is that there was also no capital of "Germany". I strongly advise to emphasize in the article that "kingdom of Germany" is a very, very unusual coinage, perhaps only used by Gillingham, certainly not in Germany itself. It would be a shame if Wikipedia were to lead students to using a terminology that is bound to produce raised eyebrows on the part of teachers, professors and the like.141.91.129.2 12:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just done some reading up and found out that my suggestion that the avoidance of "kingdom of Germany" has to do with the concept of "Personenverbandsstaat" is correct. On the other hand I've learnt that quite recent publications claim that the early medieval state was not quite as strictly a "Personenverbandsstaat" as the inventor of the term (Theodor Mayer, died 1975) believed; there are indications of early consciousness of something like territorial borders (which, of course, are fundamental for a "Flächenstaat"). Nevertheless, the earliest reference to a "regnum teutonicorum" in German sources is from the years after 1070. "We have no equivalent terminology dating from previos centuries." (Raphaela Averkorn, The Process of Nationbuilding in Medieval Germany", in: Before and Beyond the Nation-State - PDF-document, retrievable through Google). This means that even more than 100 years after the German king Henry I. had died the notion of a "kingdom of Germany" doesn't seem to have been developed. Okay, I believe that I must modify my initial complete dismissal of the term "kingdom of Germany" as misleading. I still think, however, that it shouldn't be introduced without pointing out that the use of it is still highly controversial and therefore rare. In order to explain why this is so I feel that at least a brief discussion of the questions involved is necessary.141.91.129.2 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a discussion of the historiography is necessary and though the exact term "Kingdom of Germany" is rare in English, the concept that lies behind it is commonly acknowledged. Also, I am aware that Arnulf the Bad was referred to as reigning in the "regno teutonicorum" in 920, for what it's worth. Srnec 04:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Raphaela Averkorn (in the article cited) mentions that there seem to be references to a "regnum teutonicorum" or "germanorum" before 1070, but they are from outside (Italian, if I remember it correctly). I believe it is a sound principle to value the terminology of the people concerned higher than that of others when it comes to how they call themselves. Averkorn also cites examples from much later centuries that show that the pope and others were reluctant to use the terminology the German emperors/kings used because, obviously, they were loath to accept the underlying idea of universal rule over (western) christendom that was embraced by rulers from Otto I. onwards. Incidentally, as to the argument that if there was a German king there also had to be a Kingdom of Germany: since 1125 (until 1806) the German kings, when they hadn't yet been crowned as emperors, held the title "Roman king", but, surely, one wouldn't say that there was a "Kingdom of Rome". 141.91.129.3 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree on the point about valuing the opinions of the people themselves over those of others. I think that the consensus of others is a better gauge of reality than the pretensions of the people themselves. Srnec 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Gillingham's "The Kingdom of Germany..." was an "Historical Association Pamphlet". This article ("The Process of Nationbuilding in Medieval Germany. A Brief Overview") Averkorn writes:
Before proceeding it is necessary to give some definitions to avoid misunderstandings. Some terms will be used in Latin, because of their special significance. The terms regnum (singular) or regna (plural) have various meanings such as “royaume”, “kingdom”, “realm” and in general “lant” in the medieval German. They could also be applied to a political or geographical unit, as for example in the Early Middle Ages we can find the regna of Bavaria, Franconia, Saxony and so forth in the kingdom of Germany 5.
Here we will use the term “Germany” to mean the German regnum, part of the imperium, the Holy Roman Empire which covered many more territories than the German parts and was linked for example in the times of the Hohenstaufen to the regnum of Sicily or in the times of the Luxemburg dynasty to the regnum of Bohemia 6.
The term natio (nation) derives from Latin, too; natio is related to nasci (= be born). This term indicates a common origin, a biological one and a geographical one. Some persons might be members of the same family and/or born in the same place, region, town, castle, and so forth. Therefore natio and nationes can have different meanings in the Middle Ages 7. Generally we can state that during the Middle Ages the German regnum, the German “state” and the German “nation” were never identical 8.
I think this is the nub of the problem to most English speaking people the term Kingdom and Nation and State do not necessarily mean what they may mean to experts in the field, because the kingdoms they are most familiar with are England and Scotland which were from an early date all three. Also this article may suffer from this assumption as the article starts "The Kingdom of Germany was a medieval state". Which is why I wrote above that There is a difference between claiming that one is King of the Germans and that a Kingdom of Germany existed. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I suffer from your cited misconceptions regarding "nation," "state," and "kingdom." Medieval Germany was a state, though it wasn't a nation state. It was the state over which Henry the Fowler, Conrad III, Rudolf of Hapsburg, and Frederick the Fair ruled, for example. That is a simplification, I admit. But did you read the whole article by Averkorn, which was "not original research"? I think that it definitely admits the existence of a German kingdom. Srnec 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Srnec: When I wrote: "I believe it is a sound principle to value the terminology of the people concerned higher than that of others when it comes to how they call themselves", you answered: "I would disagree on the point about valuing the opinions of the people themselves over those of others. I think that the consensus of others is a better gauge of reality than the pretensions of the people themselves." This is a typical example of wrongly insinuating in one's answer to someone else's utterance that he said something that he hasn't. Your answer disregards the crucial clause of my statement, the clause that contains the condition on which I believe that one should "value the terminology of the people concerned higher...". The condition is: "when it comes to how they call themselves." Do you understand? Or are you unwilling to understand? Or would you really rather have others decide what your name is? By the way, a while ago you argued: "Why else all the references to kings of Germany if there was no such kingdom?" Let me tell you that, at least in German - generally and also in history books - you will very rarely encounter "König von Deutschland"; the German kings are called "Deutscher König". That is a subtle but telling difference, it is an expression of the reluctance to speak of a "German Kingdom". A similar subtlety is that the Frederick William, elector of Brandenburg (1620-1688) called himself (and was called by others) "King in Prussia" (not of Prussia). This fine distinction takes into account that the Prussian territory - which was outside the realm of the HRE - was divided into a ducal part that was leased from the Polish king and another part that the Polish king held himself. But you would, of course, disregard all such subtleties of nomenclature and call a spade whatever you decide it should be called.141.91.129.3 10:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit to misreading/understanding you. But I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I cannot see how the statment that we should "value the terminology of the people concerned" over other terminology ... when it comes to how they call themselves" amounts to anything more than the tautological "value what the people concerned say ... when it comes to what they say [about themselves]." Of course! What else would you regard when it comes to what people call themselves? What others call them? That would be odd. You too made an error when you sarcastically asked "would you rather have others decide what your name is?" If my name is "what I call myself" then others simply cannot determine my name. If my name is "what my parents called me at birth", then I have to ascribe to what other people say. The crux of the matter is: what ought to determine what a nation/country/state is called? And perhaps different circumstances call for different usages. I am not ignorant of the subtleties, but English scholarship has not made so sharp a distinction, I don't believe. I don't think English speakers see a (real) difference between "German Kingdom" and "Kingdom of Germany". Probably because "Deutschland" has a different history in German than "Germany" does in English. Srnec 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

My historical atlas also mentions the Kingdom of Germany. Perhaps it can be described as a Kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire, along with the Kingdom of Arles and Italy. I also think the title King of the Romans and King of Germany are the same thing, both being crowned at Aachen.

There is a point though at some point in the late Middle Ages where Germany ceases to be a Kingdom and merely becomes an Empire with several soveriegn states. You can put this at a number of dates such as the Golden Bull of 1356, The fall of the Staufen dynasty or the Peace of Westphalia.

I would like to work on this article more and explore the concept of German polities in the Middle Ages. Any feedback is welcome at robertplunkett24@yahoo.co.uk.

[edit] Infobox

Why does the infobox list the dates 919-962?. Yes Otto I became Holy Roman Emperor but he and his successors were also Kings of Germany, implying that a German Kingdom did exist within the Holy Roman Empire.

[edit] It didn't exist

German here. As pointed out, neither Deutsches Königreich nor Königreich Deutschland is ever to be found in the German language at all. German historiography uses to translate the regnum teutonicum mentioned above either as land/realm/territory where Germans live, but certainly not a state or even kingdom when applied to the 900s), or scholars explain that it refers to a Germanophone ruling class, i. e. the dukes, ruling over many different territorries and peoples not even speaking Germanic languages. After all, would you call Northern Italy a part of Germany? Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Deutsches (Königreich-)Reich or Regnum (Teutonicum are found in German. And Kingdom of Germany certainly in English.
A regnum can never be considered in a geographic manner. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also consider that the Holy Roman Empire was never meant to resemble anything like a state or nation ever since the translatio imperii in 800 CE. Nominally and ideologically it was a successor to the Roman Empire, and even further, a theocracy created in order to unify all of the then-known world under one deity. What you describe here as Kingdom of Germany, as in a modern state ruled by a monarchy, following the 900s is merely called deutscher Reichsteil ("German part of the Empire") in Germanophone historiography. Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nation state? Irrelevant! We are not talking nation states here. "Theocracy"? Nonsense!
deutscher Reichsteil a possible alternative in historiography but not the common term and also a bit misleading. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You may not be talking about a nation state but as I wrote on the 23rd April this year "to most English speaking people the term Kingdom and Nation and State do not necessarily mean what they may mean to experts in the field, because the kingdoms they are most familiar with are England and Scotland which were from an early date all three. Also this article may suffer from this assumption as the article starts "The Kingdom of Germany was a medieval state". Which is why I wrote above that There is a difference between claiming that one is King of the Germans and that a Kingdom of Germany existed." --Philip Baird Shearer 10:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the fact that medieval Germany was no nation state is irrelevant to the question whether a Germany existed or how that Germany was called politically. Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

After all, the "German part of the Empire" was not regarded any higher than the "Burgundic", the "Italian", or the "Bohemian" parts, to name a few. All territory states within the Empire where totally independent states for themselves, the Empire was but a confederation of them, and it was certainly not a king or monarchy holding all these independent and manifold states, dukes, tribes, and ethnic groups together. What they were adhering to when following the Emperor were Christianity and papacy, also in the idea of a "Christian Empire", so to speak. Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Who cares whether it was regarded as higher? It was the most basic part - and "Bohemia" was part of it.
"All territory states within the Empire where totally independent states for themselves, the Empire was but a confederation of them"
Popular but utter nonsense: even in its decline, the territories of the Empire never had total sovereignity until 1805. The Empire/Kingdom was no confederation (=several entities coming together to form a loose union) but a monarchy in decline with individual parts gaining more and power autonomy and power. De facto this boils down to the same but ONLY during its last years or centuries.
The Kingdom/Empire were held together by the person of the monarch - there were other Christian polities in Europe at the time and not all subjects of the Emperor were Catholics (especially after the Reformation) and some even where non-Christians. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You might at times find references to a Medieval Königtum (not Königreich) within the Empire, but that only relates to the incomplete title of the ruler prior to his righteous declaration as Emperor. Mere kings were not as accepted as leaders within the Holy Roman Empire among the dukes as was the official Emperor, and often-times throughout the Middle Ages, they even downright rejected a ruler's orders if he was but king, not the Emperor of all Emperors. This "king" was not even able to lead a war for himself, and most of the time, he was much poorer even than the poorest of his dukes that all had their own armies. Any single duke could easily depose one of these kings if he wanted to, the only things that held him back before a king was promoted Emperor were mostly all the other dukes and, partly, ancestral lineage of the ruling dynasty. Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So the title of Henry I was incomplete? Who are you to say that? I doubt that any rival would have not accepted a King for lack of the Imperial crown. It never happened! Where the bizarre idea that a Duke could depose a King is beyond me. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, how can there be a kingdom without a monarchy? It's a monarchy only if the monarch acquires his right for the throne by his mere birth-right, while every single one of the Holy Roman Emperors was in fact elected as "King of the Romans" (not "of the Germans"!) by the Imperial Electoral College via a democratic vote among those dukes that were Prince-Electors. Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Moot point. There is a kingdom and a monarchy. Monarchy means (legal) rule by one man, not inherited rule. You may want to consider whether France in the Early middle ages was a monarchy, even though there was no birth right. Democratic vote? Oh my. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And lastly, rex Teutonicorum, or "King of the Germans" was but a derogatory name used for political propaganda not only by the popes but in all of the Italian part of the Empire, alluding to the idea that any "barbarian" not of Italian origin was unfit and unworthy to rule a Holy Roman Empire, no matter to what places on earth this Empire might extend its reach still emanating from the Palatine Hill. --Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But we are not talking about the title of the King (and that was not mere propaganda but a reflection what he actually ruled) but about the name of the Kingdom and that was Germany. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly opt for replacing the uttterly wrong and at best very misleading article with this text (with only few alterations in order to make it an encyclopedia article). Thank you, Tlatosmd. --AndreasPraefcke 11:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

+1 Tlatosmds text should replace this article. Otherwise it should be deleted. But a Kingdom of Germany as described now, did never exist. --Gunter.krebs 12:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
German here. As pointed out, neither Deutsches Königreich nor Königreich Deutschland is ever to be found in the German language at all. German historiography uses to translate the regnum teutonicum mentioned above either as land/realm/territory where Germans live, but certainly not a state or even kingdom when applied to the 900s), or scholars explain that it refers to a Germanophone ruling class, i. e. the dukes, ruling over many different territorries and peoples not even speaking Germanic languages. After all, would you call Northern Italy a part of Germany?
Terminology by modern German historians has no baring on these matters, esp. as Germans have been brained-washed since 1945 to think that German history starts in the early 1870s. The term "Kingdom of Germany" is used by almost every historian writing in English who has a chance to use it. Anyways, the northern part of Italy was part of the Kingdom of Pavia or Italy, not Germany. And regnum means Kingdom, which is what realm is supposed to mean too. So the term regnum Teutonicorum means Kingdom of the Germans, the standard way (called "rex-gens" or "regnum-gens") to refer to kingdoms in earlier medieval Europe. And btw, German dukes ruled German provinces unless they acquired other territories by conquest (in which case German settlers poured in).
Also consider that the Holy Roman Empire was never meant to resemble anything like a state or nation ever since the translatio imperii in 800 CE. Nominally and ideologically it was a successor to the Roman Empire, and even further, a theocracy created in order to unify all of the then-known world under one deity. What you describe here as Kingdom of Germany, as in a modern state ruled by a monarchy, following the 900s is merely called deutscher Reichsteil ("German part of the Empire") in Germanophone historiography.
The state in the late 900s was not the state in 800; in 800 the Pope had given the title to the King of the Franks; he gave it to various rulers thereafter, and it didn't settle with a King of the Germans until after Otto I. Let me quote you Susan Reynolds:
"Those who believe the German kingdom had no real unity at this state [reign of Henry the Fowler] have sometimes argued that it was not called regnum Teutonicorum until the twelfth century and that so long as the Germans thought of themselves only as East Franks (or East Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, and so on), they could not be united. The argument seems overstrained, not least because it rests on the absense of evidence, which is dangerous in such an ill-recorded period. For what it is worth, recent study suggests that the evidence that the name regnum Teutonicorum was not used in the tenth century is weak" (citing Beumann, "Die Bedeutung des Kaisertums", 343-7).
After all, the "German part of the Empire" was not regarded any higher than the "Burgundic", the "Italian", or the "Bohemian" parts, to name a few. All territory states within the Empire where totally independent states for themselves, the Empire was but a confederation of them, and it was certainly not a king or monarchy holding all these independent and manifold states, dukes, tribes, and ethnic groups together. What they were adhering to when following the Emperor were Christianity and papacy, also in the idea of a "Christian Empire", so to speak.
Well, the people who elected the monarch were the Germans, and Burgundy and Italy came after with no election. Those kingdoms were acquired after the German kingdom and its system of election had already been established. As by the 11th century the German dukes expected their King to be emperor, the Kingdom and Empire were the same in a confused way that Burdundy and Italy were not. Hence Wipo wrote about the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy, distinguishing those from terra Teutonicorum. For a list of sources within the Empire in this period that distinguish the regnum Teutonicorum from the Kingdom of Italy, and Germans from Romans, see Reynolds, Community of the Realm, p. 294, n. 112. Otto von Freising, imperial historian, biographer and servant, when writing of some Germans who got in trouble in Constantinople, called the Germans "our people". Also, the belief that the High Medieval German kingdom was a "confederation" or particularly fragmented is a complete myth generated by the Kingdom's later fate. It was an authoritarian autocracy compared with the "France" of the same period.
You might at times find references to a Medieval Königtum (not Königreich) within the Empire, but that only relates to the incomplete title of the ruler prior to his righteous declaration as Emperor. Mere kings were not as accepted as leaders within the Holy Roman Empire among the dukes as was the official Emperor, and often-times throughout the Middle Ages, they even downright rejected a ruler's orders if he was but king, not the Emperor of all Emperors. This "king" was not even able to lead a war for himself, and most of the time, he was much poorer even than the poorest of his dukes that all had their own armies. Any single duke could easily depose one of these kings if he wanted to, the only things that held him back before a king was promoted Emperor were mostly all the other dukes and, partly, ancestral lineage of the ruling dynasty.
Election of the King for the earlier period was not what made the King Emperor, it was going into Italy and being crowned by the Pope. It made no difference to the king's power in Germany until later when the Pope would oppose an election and promote a rival candidate.
Finally, how can there be a kingdom without a monarchy? It's a monarchy only if the monarch acquires his right for the throne by his mere birth-right, while every single one of the Holy Roman Emperors was in fact elected as "King of the Romans" (not "of the Germans"!) by the Imperial Electoral College via a democratic vote among those dukes that were Prince-Electors.
Again, you're going into the fragmentation period to generalize about the Empire for its entire history, which is bad history. Elections were often only nominal; there was rarely an election were candidates turned up not knowing if they would be king ... in the earlier period at least. The electors just rubber stamped it in many cases. Such elections existed in many contemporary European kingdoms, but of course it was Germany that the formal system well call the Electoral college came into its own.
And lastly, rex Teutonicorum, or "King of the Germans" was but a derogatory name used for political propaganda not only by the popes but in all of the Italian part of the Empire, alluding to the idea that any "barbarian" not of Italian origin was unfit and unworthy to rule a Holy Roman Empire, no matter to what places on earth this Empire might extend its reach still emanating from the Palatine Hill
Actually, the title was pretty commonly used in Latin chronicles both throughout Europe, although the Kings themselves aspired to be successors of the Roman Emperors; Alexander von Roes' discussion of the origin of the Germans goes to great lengths to defend the charge that the Germans are barbarians and unworthy successors of the Roman emperors, concocting a tale that the Germans of his own day (1280) were descended from Trojans (from whom the Romans were descended) who married women from the ancient Germans. Alexander von Roes clearly, btw, distinguishes Germany from Italy, Burgundy and Bohemia. It is only moderns that don't seem to be able to do that. 129.215.149.97 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, besides any technical terminology, fact is, high medieval emperors got elected King in Germany (usually Mainz or Aachen), went to Burgundy (acquired by marriage), got crowned there, went to Lombardy, got crowned there, and got made emperor in Rome by the Pope. As Bohemia wasn't even in the Empire then, and after it was it had Kingdom status, all you've got in medieval terms is the place called Germany ... so you either follow common medieval use and modern English scholarly use and call it the Kingdom of Germany, which was the actual precedent for the later King in Germany, or you adopt a complete neologism based on one of the preposterously absurd formalistic style styles the Kings used ... e.g. you'd be calling it Kingdom of the Romans for a kingdom that included nothing originally but Germany (Germany then included the area in the modern Netherlands, as well as the area in modern "Austria" and "Swizerland"). :lol: And again, King in Germany ("in" rather than "of" was a later ideological development) and Germaniae Rex was the title under Emperor that the king used in Germany. Hence any title for this article other than Kingdom of Germany would be absurd and unhistorical. There is no argument here. The article is useful, essential in fact, and there is no basis for changes in name. Or what is it that you want? 129.215.149.97 13:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
a.) Of course you have to remember that Germans have only been counter-"brainwashed" after 1945 to what happened since 1870 when mystical Prussian nationalism turned into mystical, romanticized German nationalism. Now, how much of the original 1870-onwards spin remained on German history in non-Germanophone historiography?
b.) Why call "absense of evidence" to the clearly stated aspiration of a trans-national, even super-national theocracy? Why dodge the issue alltogether by stating the unrelated fact that the Popes didn't only coronate people from one single tribe? It's even more absurd to claim "absense of evidence" at the fact that there was absolutely no de facto central power, only pledges and oaths that were mostly given and then forgotten. If there's any claim made from "absense of evidence", it would be the claim that this Latin phrase resembling a hic sunt Germanii was frequently used simply because we don't have the evidence.
c.) It weren't the German "people" that elected the king, those were 7 noble Prince-Electors, one of them the King of Bohemia who had neither Germanic ancestry nor ruled a Germanophone or Germanic-originated people.
d.) If you date the German election system prior to Charlemagne and even the caption of Rome ("Well, the people who elected the monarch were the Germans, and Burgundy and Italy came after with no election. Those kingdoms were acquired after the German kingdom and its system of election had already been established."), you only have tribal chiefs, as Alaric I certainly was no Germanic "king", not even "king of all Germanic tribes".
e.) "Terra Teutonicorum"? Terra is most definitely a geographical denominator, least of all a political one, and not even relating to ethnic origin. As for regnum Teutonicorum, again, that resembles either a dwelling ground or the language of a ruling class, especially during the High Middle Ages when the Ostsiedlung deep into Slavic territories and mingling with Slavic tribes was well on its way. v. Freising wrote of "our people"? Did he really write that as nos populus, nos gens, or tou ethnou emeterou? Didn't he rather write something along the lines of nos ministrae, nos curatores, or archa emetera? How could the king command an "authoritarian autocracy" if the dukes most of the time didn't even feel like listening to or even just supporting their king? During the High Middle Ages, the Empire was so fragile and centrifugal in its confederate structure that during the 1930s, Norbert Elias called it the direct, even classical opposite of an autocracy such as France at the time, saying that it didn't start to resemble anything like French autocracy before the 16th century.
f.) "Election of the King for the earlier period was not what made the King Emperor..." That's exactly what I said. "It made no difference to the king's power in Germany until later when the Pope would oppose an election and promote a rival candidate." Your sources? How would a pauper with a handful of men oppose dozens of wealthy warlords? The only way he could make the dukes co-operate was by Imperial gloriole, not before his legitimate promotion as Leader of all Christianity.
g.) Of course elections were often decided within the same day as it was merely a matter of the highest bribes.
h.) If v. Roes tries to deny a Germanic origin, it only goes to show how little the people of his time, even Germanophone subjects loyal to the Empire, trusted those barbarians that had sacked Rome and a few centuries later gave rise to Charlemagne. Obviously they didn't want to have anything to do with primitives such as Charlemagne's Franks and preferred being genetically related to the Romans. So much about a "German nationality".
i.) Technically speaking, those coronations in Mainz or Aachen were rather declared king while in Mainz or Aachen. The ceremonies taking place in Lombardy and Rome even run totally counter your earlier claim that kings were elected by a German "people" or even a German "nation", while they were in fact elected by 7 people. "And again, King in Germany ("in" rather than "of" was a later ideological development)", again, you're only debunking your own words. Germaniae Rex, the title introduced by Maximilian I around 1500? Again, you're the only one mixing up the period of 1500s-onwards with the High and even Early Middle Ages. From 1648 on, I wouldn't even speak of a de facto existence of the Empire anymore.
j.) "follow common medieval use and modern English scholarly use and call it the Kingdom of Germany" Your "common use" is so common that at least Google belongs to those entities that find it rather neglectable, most likely a recent term made up by Gillingham in 1971 and sparsely ever used since.
Consider it like this, whenever the monarch of England changes sex, England's national anthem conforms to that ("God save the king/queen"), but the Holy Roman Empire didn't suddenly shrivel into an Unholy German Kingdom simply because the Prince-Electors had elected a mere king not promoted Emperor yet, it rather meant this nominal ruler had no verifiable command over his promised Imperial, theocratic authority-to-be yet.
As for what I want, I'm not a fan of hasty article deletions. However, you're free to make this an article on Gillingham's 1971 book, with a detailed criticism why the term "Kingdom of Germany" is clearly false and not chosen too well. --Tlatosmd 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is most tiresome. "Kingdom of Germany" is a convenient term for the kingdom ruled by Henry the Fowler, et al. there is no other convenient term for said state, besides, arguably, "German Kingdom," which means the same thing, but sounds awkward in English. The term is used in English. This kingdom was but one of several separate kingdoms which together made up the Holy Roman Empire, the others being Italy and Burgundy. Eventually, the Holy Roman Empire (which most certainly did exist after 1648, even if it wasn't very much like a proper modern nation-state) receded so that the Italian and Burgundian territories were basically lost, and the two became largely synonymous, making use of "German Kingdom" (or whatever) obsolete and unnecessary. So, anyway, what the anon said. john k 03:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with John. There is no basis for changing anything here. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Henri the Fowler (note that the name "the Fowler" is not used by modern historicans) wasn't King of Germany. He was king of East Francia or roman-german king. Maybe "German Kingdom" sounds arkward, but it is really better to translate the term "deutscher König." The same can be said for the Italian Kingdom (compare the italian parts of the Ottonian realm with modern Italy) or Burgundian Kingdom (compare on a map the realm of Rudolph II of Burgundy to the Bourgogne). My suggestion is: Move it! -- Tobnu 06:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
So if one is a Roman-German King one isn't King of Germany?
Comparisons with modern map are irrelevant, as things political and geographical names in their meaning and extent. Compare modern France with early medieval France. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"King" was but a traditional but powerless title inherited from the Frankian kingdom which broke up and partly turned into the kingdom of East Frankia. Geographically and ethnically, the Holy Roman Empire did contain parts of what turned into Germany today (after 1806, that is, in any case certainly only after 1500), but as Str1977 correctly points out, it's wrong to equal Medieval situations with modern ones, so you simply can't speak of anything like a "Germany" back then, especially not in a political or national sense. Administratively, the Holy Roman Empire built partly on a comparably meaningless tradition of continuing the kingdom of East Frankia (which, in turn, is a genuine contemporary name for it, and it is what the title of "king" was relating to, this title was simply extended to the city of Rome as well), but most of all its administrative and political essence and identity was continuing the Roman Empire. Barbarians of Germanic tongue happened to run the Empire since the translatio imperii, however they saw themselves in the tradition of the Capitol Hill and on a mission for the sake of Christianity.
Only now do I see your additions right in the middle of things Str1977. I would appreciate if you'd simply add your posts to the bottom of this thread in order to retain readability.
I've never read about any so-called "Deutsches Königreich", or any "Königreich Deutschland", in Germanophone historiography, not even during the glorifying times of 1870-1945. The one term that comes closest to it that was in use since the Bismarck Empire was declaring the Middle Ages to be "das Zeitalter germanischer Großreiche", and those were basically France (due to its Frankish ruling class), England, and the Holy Roman Empire. I've googled for "Deutsches Königreich", and the only two kinds of usage of this term that popped up were a.) a handful of people that have never studied or read a non-fictional book about it and were talking informally on forums, and b.) usage such as "Preußen, ein deutsches Königreich", or "das deutsche Königreich Bayern", but that's like saying "Federal Germany is a European republic", that doesn't mean that Germany "is" all of Europe.
You're wrong to declare Bohemia a part of East Frankia, in fact it was but associated with the Empire (so you can actually talk about a proper, de facto as well as nominally independent King of Bohemia). No independence of the territory states or dukes/counts, etc. prior to 1806? Tell that to Frederick II of Prussia, or the Protestant Union that was already taking shape when Frederick III, Elector of Saxony was powerful enough to protect Martin Luther from the grasp of Emperor Charles V. And even before that, the only times the dukes were inclined to follow their king was only when he'd been promoted Emperor, not sooner. How powerful is such a "central power" if this "monarch" is a nomad in the most powerless sense of the word? The reason why the Empire never had a formal capitol was because the king had to keep moving at all times simply to find food for himself and the court. If he could combine that with adminstrative duties on a local level, fine, but before being promoted Emperor, he had no real power to enforce negotiations and treaties he'd made with any duke or Free City.
I thought we're not mixing up Early and High Middle Ages with Modernity? Then why are you talking about the Reformation period as if it would be the constitution of East Frankia? As for earlier times the Holy Roman Empire being ideologically and politically a theocracy, especially since Benedictus Levita around 850 CE faked certain Charlemagnian Capitularies within the Pseudo-Isidore, the Empire was determined that its mission on this earth was to make sure that any single of it subjects, if not even any single person on earth, was baptized, not only to save humanity from Judgement Day, but also in order to prevent natural desasters, plagues, and war losses due to god's wrath here and now, long before the Second Coming. In order to clarify things, you shouldn't think of the Pseuoo-Isidore as something like an official constitution such as the Golden Bull of 1356, but rather as a fictional yet believed piece of socio-cultural influence akin to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
"Where the bizarre idea that a Duke could depose a King is beyond me." Exactly, that's why you can't talk about an actual "kingdom".
"But we are not talking about the title of the King (and that was not mere propaganda but a reflection what he actually ruled) but about the name of the Kingdom and that was Germany.". The addition "of a German nation" did not exist prior to 1450 when most other territories had been lost, and was not used officially prior to 1512. You could just as well talk about a "Reich of Flensburg" ruled by Karl Dönitz in 1945, only that his downfall arrived sooner. --Tlatosmd 08:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There's so much tendentious nonsense here I don't even know where to start. What's this business about dukes deposing kings? When did that ever happen? Why is the German Kingdom of Henry I and Otto I any less a kingdom than the contemporary Kingdom of France, which was, if anything, considerably more fragmented, and whose kings were considerably less powerful? as to the situation prior to 1806, of course Str is not denying that the various princes, counts, knights, and free cities had a great deal of autonomy, and, for the more powerful, at least, close to de facto independence. But the Holy Roman Empire was a real entity that had real institutions that did real things. It wasn't a modern nation-state, but that doesn't make it any less real. Beyond that, I see a great deal of nonsense. The idea that the dukes were only inclined to follow the king once he had become emperor is deeply silly - how do you think a king got to be emperor without the support of the dukes in making his expedition to Italy? Obviously there were lots of rebellions, but that was true everywhere in Europe - I don't see how the medieval German kingdom (pre-1250) is notable for being particularly more fragmented than any other polity in Europe. And then there's a whole lot of nonsense about theocracy. The Holy Roman Empire was no more a theocracy than any other European state - that is, not very much of one. Obviously it was a Christian (and, to a certain extent, a Catholic) state. But a theocracy is a state ruled by the clergy, and this the Empire (and the German Kingdom) never was. In general, I really don't grasp the point here. On the one hand, there seems to be a claim that a particular term (Königreich Deutschland) isn't used in German, which is irrelevant; on the other hand, there's the incredibly factually dubious claim that this kingdom didn't exist at all. All this combined with a lot of really really tendentious historical analysis. john k 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk about concisely destroying someone's arguments. You make these points far better and more clearly than I, John. 129.215.149.96 06:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
John put it well so I will only address some items:
  • It is uttter nonsense (and that's understatement) that the title of King was a powerless title. Of course, sometimes the King was powerless but that's not suprising.
  • Don't misuse my words for your nonsense: "it's wrong to equal Medieval situations with modern ones" - which means that you CAN speak of Germany - as a region and as a polity - in the middle ages. Just because they were different then from now doesn't mean they didn't exist.
  • "You're wrong to declare Bohemia a part of East Frankia (sic)" - only I never did this. I said that the Duchy and later Kingdom of Bohemia was part of the Kingdom of Germany within the Holy Roman Empire. And that's a fact.
  • "Independence" is a big word (and, when taken literally, nonexistent in the real word, but I digress). All the estates of the HRE were not completely sovereign, though since Emperor Frederick II they were more than just lieutenants of the King/Emperor. Since 1648 (Westphalian Peace) they had they right to conduct their own foreign policy and conclude alliances (BUT NOT against their Lord, the Emperor, or the Empire). Only in 1805 were some estates (those elevated to Kingdoms) given sovereignity which they soon used to quit the Empire altogether. (I am not sure that that was legal, but anyway, that's what happened). As for Frederick of Prussia, the Protestant Union or Frederick the Unwise, they all played their political games and did what they did but just because they violated the law back than doesn't prove your point.
  • As John has said, the idea that Dukes only followed Emperors is bullocks.
  • "How powerful is such a "central power" if this "monarch" is a nomad in the most powerless sense of the word?" You betray extreme ignorance to the medieval world. To have power you have to exercise it and to exercise it in a time with out bureaucracy and telecommunication, you need to go to the places and act there. And this is why the King/Emperor moved around. The Kingdom never had a capital (spelling!) but it had various important cities (Aachen, Frankfurt, Mainz, Nürnberg, Regensburg, Augsburg, Cologne) and many royal palaces. The capital of the Empire was of course Rome.
Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tlatosmd said: a.) Of course you have to remember that Germans have only been counter-"brainwashed" after 1945 to what happened since 1870 when mystical Prussian nationalism turned into mystical, romanticized German nationalism. Now, how much of the original 1870-onwards spin remained on German history in non-Germanophone historiography?
That's prolly how the brain-washing has been justified; however, Germany was not invented in the 19th century, and this state has been called the Kingdom of Germany since the 10th century, even if only informally. The bizarre and irrational thing is not swallowing 19th century propaganda, but reacting to it so strongly that you end up wronger than they were.
Tlatosmd said: b.) Why call "absense of evidence" to the clearly stated aspiration of a trans-national, even super-national theocracy? Why dodge the issue alltogether by stating the unrelated fact that the Popes didn't only coronate people from one single tribe? It's even more absurd to claim "absense of evidence" at the fact that there was absolutely no de facto central power, only pledges and oaths that were mostly given and then forgotten. If there's any claim made from "absense of evidence", it would be the claim that this Latin phrase resembling a hic sunt Germanii was frequently used simply because we don't have the evidence.
The "Absense of evidence" relates only to formal styles of imperial diplomatic and titles; other sources call it Kingdom of Germany. And you are totally way off about the Kingdom having no central power in the 10th and 11th centuries; please do some reading about the state in this period, it is far more centralized than "France", the King of which was a powerless figurehead compared with the Emperor ... at least until the reign of Philip Augustus.
Tlatosmd said: c.) It weren't the German "people" that elected the king, those were 7 noble Prince-Electors, one of them the King of Bohemia who had neither Germanic ancestry nor ruled a Germanophone or Germanic-originated people.
This is funny. The King of Bohemia wasn't an elector until much later, and the presence of Bohemia later led to the belief that Bohemia was in Germany, hence its presence in the German Confederation. 129.215.149.96 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It was not a belief. Bohemia was part of the German polity (albeit a special part). Str1977 (smile back) 08:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
At first the King was (after the Carolingians who inherited Kingship) chosen and elected by delegations of the various tribes under the leadership of their Dukes. Later the Dukes' roles and that of other princes became more important until it was completely restricted to the 7 (at first) Electors. Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tlatosmd said: If you date the German election system prior to Charlemagne and even the caption of Rome ("Well, the people who elected the monarch were the Germans, and Burgundy and Italy came after with no election. Those kingdoms were acquired after the German kingdom and its system of election had already been established."), you only have tribal chiefs, as Alaric I certainly was no Germanic "king", not even "king of all Germanic tribes".
Alaric has nothing to do with the medieval Kingdom of Germany. What on Earth are you talking about? And Charlemagne was the King of the Franks. The Kingdom of Germany is after Charlemagne.
Tlatosmd said: e.) "Terra Teutonicorum"? Terra is most definitely a geographical denominator, least of all a political one, and not even relating to ethnic origin. As for regnum Teutonicorum, again, that resembles either a dwelling ground or the language of a ruling class, especially during the High Middle Ages when the Ostsiedlung deep into Slavic territories and mingling with Slavic tribes was well on its way. v. Freising wrote of "our people"? Did he really write that as nos populus, nos gens, or tou ethnou emeterou? Didn't he rather write something along the lines of nos ministrae, nos curatores, or archa emetera? How could the king command an "authoritarian autocracy" if the dukes most of the time didn't even feel like listening to or even just supporting their king? During the High Middle Ages, the Empire was so fragile and centrifugal in its confederate structure that during the 1930s, Norbert Elias called it the direct, even classical opposite of an autocracy such as France at the time, saying that it didn't start to resemble anything like French autocracy before the 16th century.
I'd need to go get the Latin text to quote you. Anyways, Norbert Elias is he makes any sense can only be talking about the later middle ages, and the Empire was far more autocratic than France, at least before Philip Augustus, if not before the 30 Years War. The French kings before Philip could only have dreamed about Imperial cities, compliant abbots, archbishops and bishops, and Dukes who who did what they were told most of the time. More of France was under the French count and duke who was king of England than the King of France in the 12th century.
Tlatosmd said: f.) "Election of the King for the earlier period was not what made the King Emperor..." That's exactly what I said. "It made no difference to the king's power in Germany until later when the Pope would oppose an election and promote a rival candidate." Your sources? How would a pauper with a handful of men oppose dozens of wealthy warlords? The only way he could make the dukes co-operate was by Imperial gloriole, not before his legitimate promotion as Leader of all Christianity.
Read any decent account of the Early Empire. It is now clear you know almost nothing about the central medieval Kingdom. 129.215.149.96 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
"It made no difference to the king's power in Germany until later when the Pope would oppose an election and promote a rival candidate." Complete confusion. The situation required for this that the German Kingdom had not unanimously elected a single King but elected two rivals (as in 1198, or 1314) and then the Pope claimed the right to decide which one was the legitimate ruler (based on his undisputed right to crown the King Emperor). Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tlatosmd said: g.) Of course elections were often decided within the same day as it was merely a matter of the highest bribes.
Please give some examples of this. 129.215.149.96 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Bribes sometimes played a role (but mostly combating rival bribes, as in 1519) but the elections were most of all a matter of politics and the interests of the Electors, not bribes. Str1977 (smile back) 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tlatosmd said: h.) If v. Roes tries to deny a Germanic origin, it only goes to show how little the people of his time, even Germanophone subjects loyal to the Empire, trusted those barbarians that had sacked Rome and a few centuries later gave rise to Charlemagne. Obviously they didn't want to have anything to do with primitives such as Charlemagne's Franks and preferred being genetically related to the Romans. So much about a "German nationality".
No, German nationality was taken for granted. V. Roes and others were trying to distinguish the Germans of their own period from the ancient Germans who everyone knew were barbarians and did so much bad to Rome. 129.215.149.96 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tlatosmd said: i.) Technically speaking, those coronations in Mainz or Aachen were rather declared king while in Mainz or Aachen. The ceremonies taking place in Lombardy and Rome even run totally counter your earlier claim that kings were elected by a German "people" or even a German "nation", while they were in fact elected by 7 people. "And again, King in Germany ("in" rather than "of" was a later ideological development)", again, you're only debunking your own words. Germaniae Rex, the title introduced by Maximilian I around 1500? Again, you're the only one mixing up the period of 1500s-onwards with the High and even Early Middle Ages. From 1648 on, I wouldn't even speak of a de facto existence of the Empire anymore.
It's difficult to decipher what you are trying to say here. But I'll repeat the ceremonies taking place in Lombardy, Burgundy and Rome were unrelated to the position of King of the Germans. That happened because of elections of the stem-dukes; before the later middle ages at least, you could be the King of Germany without being Emperor, King of Burgundy or King of Italy/Lombardy.
Tlatosmd said: j.) "follow common medieval use and modern English scholarly use and call it the Kingdom of Germany" Your "common use" is so common that at least Google belongs to those entities that find it rather neglectable, most likely a recent term made up by Gillingham in 1971 and sparsely ever used since.
That's not true, it is commonly referred to by this term, both after and since Gillingham. Just grabbing some books on the shelf next to me, Malcolm Barber, Robert Bartlett and Susan Reynolds use the term.
Tlatosmd said: Consider it like this, whenever the monarch of England changes sex, England's national anthem conforms to that ("God save the king/queen"), but the Holy Roman Empire didn't suddenly shrivel into an Unholy German Kingdom simply because the Prince-Electors had elected a mere king not promoted Emperor yet, it rather meant this nominal ruler had no verifiable command over his promised Imperial, theocratic authority-to-be yet.
Don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Tlatosmd said: As for what I want, I'm not a fan of hasty article deletions. However, you're free to make this an article on Gillingham's 1971 book, with a detailed criticism why the term "Kingdom of Germany" is clearly false and not chosen too well.
Not going to happen, that's not how wikipedia works. You have not proven or even argued convincingly any general point. We can accept, and everyone knows already, that the German kings preferred calling themselves Emperors or King of the Romans to King of Germany and their Kingdom as the "Roman Empire"; but that doesn't help wikipedia. You'd need dozens of historians working for months if not years to enumerate the instances where medieval sources called the the Holy Roman Empire or at least the German part "Germany", "Kingdom of the Germans", "Kingdom of Germany" or "German kingdom"; in contrast, no-one ever called the actual medieval Roman Empire "Byzantium" or "Byzantine Empire, and the "Byzantines" didn't call their state anything but "Roman Empire"; yet that is the wiki article. That situation is infinitely more absurd that this, but it ain't gonna change. 129.215.149.96 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


It's not correct, that "Deutsches Königreich", "Königreich Deutschland" or "Deutsches Reich" meaning the German part of the empire, are not used in German sources. Actually, in most history books with maps of the HRE I have seen every one of these terms. You simply cannot say, it's not used in German sources. Same with "deutscher König" which is very common in German sources.--84.190.208.193 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One small addition: "I, bishop Calixtus, servant of the servants of God, do grant to thee beloved son, Henry-by the grace of God august emperor of the Romans-that the elections of the bishops and abbots of the German kingdom, who belong to the kingdom, shall take place in thy presence, without simony and without any violence" concordat of Worms "...episcoporum et abbatum Teutonici regni, qui ad regnum pertinent,..." was the phrase in latin.--84.190.228.82 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to King of the Germans

The dispute over the current name has to date generated 44 kilobytes of discussion while the article itself only contains 2 modest paragraphs! We could side step this disagreement above by moving the article to King of the Germans (an article name that currently redirects to List of German monarchs) and making slight alterations to the wording in this article. It would still provide the same information to the reader but have less of the POV problems that some editors think are inherent in current name of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deutscher König or King of the Germans would be a much better title for an article than this "Kingdom of Germany". It's only that the current article itself is more concerned with a state, a "nation" or anything of that ilk, while it would have to be re-written as a piece on the personal title. --Tlatosmd 10:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is about a state, not a title. And there clearly is a state, whatever it is to be called. john k 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And we already have an article about the title King of the Romans. We can also add a section on how the rulers of this kingdom were called throughout history but no more. Str1977 (smile back) 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But using the title instead of the name of the state allows one to present both points of view about the state of the state without the problem of the page name unbalancing the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What points of view? Tlatos has yet to cite any actual sources to suggest his POV is one that should be represented in the article. john k 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, what views? The baseless claims that the Kingdom did not exist? Str1977 (smile back) 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tlatosmd doesn't have any argument. The article should and will remain here. If Tlatosmd wants to add a section about controversy, he can (although it will have to be watched, since it will likely be rambling and full of misconceptions); but the only people I've ever come across who regard it as controversial are people like Tlatosmd who know about modern history but little about the Central Middle Ages. The term is well established among central medievalists writing in English and is not particularly controversial. For those who are interested, Susan Reynolds (Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe) destroys in a rather amusing and entertaining way the misconceptions modernists have about medieval Germany and medieval nations generally (2ns Ed., 250-332). When I say destroys, I don't mean originally destroys btw, just destroys. Modernist ideas about medieval European nations (particularly those ill-informed medieval introductions to discussions about nationalism) have always been rejected by medieval historians. 129.215.149.96 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Str1977 (smile back) 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
People "like me?" We have 3 people (john.k, Str1977, and an anonymous IP) arguing by retconning (projecting a German nationality into the past where it never existed) that a "Kingdom of Germany" ever existed, and we have twice as many people (Mr. Shearer, Tobnu, Gunter.krebs, Andreas, MV, and me) that say it didn't exist (saying that the nominal kingdom in question was East Frankia). You still have to present your case "Kingdom of Germany" is actually used in English as vastly as you claim (not some "kingdom" that actually relates to the nominal Kingdom of East Frankia), all I've seen up to now are Gillingham's book and one image caption on the web. --Tlatosmd 11:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
German nationality did exist though ... what, you think Bismarck made it up or something? It's statements like that which make it impossible to take you seriously. 129.215.149.97 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between nation and nationality. The English are a nation but their nationality is British. Nation has more than one meaning and must be taken in context, because otherwise it is all too easy to misunderstand the precise meaning that the person is trying to convey. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tlatosmd, it is an undisputable fact that there existed a separate polity in the geographical region now (and then!!) called Germany between the years 840 and 1806. It was a Kingdom and it was first ruled by Carolingians. Since it was the eastern half of the Regnum Francorum it was called Regnum Francorum Orientalium or Francia Orientalis. Later, when it came to be ruled by the Saxon Luidolfings it gradually became know as "Regnum Teutonicum". In English it is commobly refered to as "Kingdom of Germany". There is nothing you can you to change this apart from convincing Anglophono historians to change their usage. Go out and do it. BTW, truth does not come by majority and WP is not a democracy, so I don't care how many people (supposedly) agree with you. Str1977 (smile back) 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nowhere else

I'm really surprised that someone invented a medival Kingdom of Germany here. Is no one bothered by the fact that you don't find that in any other wikipedia, not even in the german one? --217.83.3.106 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The real inventor of the kingdom must be J. Gillingham, author of The Kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages. Or maybe it was Frederick Barbarossa, when he announced his receipt of the coronam Theutonici regni in 1152. Or perhaps the chronicler from Salzburg who thought that Arnulf of Bavaria laid claim to a regno Teutonicorum in 918. But in any case, doesn't bother me. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn’t bother me either. But I do as well find it strange that it is not included in the German Wikipedia.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a wikilink to the german article Ostfrankenreich, which leads back to East Francia. That doesn't work. --217.83.34.68 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently started the a German article about this matter, it's about as highly controversial as this one.--84.190.255.130 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Established usage

"Kingdom of Germany" is established usage in English.

Look at this cropped map: [3] On the left you have "The German empire to 1250" from The Times Compact History of the World. It shows the Holy Roman Empire with its constituent kindgdoms, among them the Kingdom of Germany, in the same font size and in bold. If you now look at the German translation on the right (from Knaurs historischer Weltatlas) you'll find the constituent "Kingdom of Germany" replaced by the umbrella term "Heiliges Römisches Reich", without changing the font size! What more proof do you need that modern Germans have a problem with a "Kingdom of Germany". Maybe the translator wasn't even aware his translation is wrong. (On both maps the violet outlines mark the borders of the Holy Roman Empire; it says so in the captions.) The DK Atlas of World History too has the "Kingdom of Germany" on several maps. Cropped examples: [4]. I have cropped the maps drastically so as to reduce them to what we are talking about. I hope this is fair use then. If you think otherwise let me know, and I'll remove them. --Johnboyx (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely serves to prove the point about English usage to our sceptical German friends. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It does not prove that "The Kingdom of Germany was a medieval state" any more than the current EU is a European State. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, that's been proven elsewhere. Though one wonders what a "kingdom" would be if it is not a state. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it, why wouldn't it be a state? Is it supposed to be a band, a tribe, a chieftancy? What? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
One can hold the title of king of an area without it being an internationally recognised state, particularly when the sub national entity is also governed by someone who reigns over an area larger than the sub national entity. There is also the problem of pretender to a throne that either does not exist or is claimed by more than one. See above #Last King of Scotland --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Who denies that it existed? The only potential problem I can see is that its name wasn't really official. But what else are you gonna call the core kingdom of what became the HRE but the term medieval writers used? Besides that, it is verifiably used by academics writing in the English language, so I really don't see the problem. The Last King of Scotland parallel is nonsense. These rulers did actually rule Germany, while it is not the case that the Ugandan dictator ruled Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otto discussed this very problem

Otto of Freising, after mentioning the succession of Henry the Fowler, wrote:

From this point some reckon a kingdom of the Germans as supplanting that of the Franks. Hence, they say that Pope Leo in the decrees of the popes, called Henry's son Otto the first king of the Germans. For that Henry of whom we are speaking refused , it is said, the honor offered by the supreme pontiff. But it seems to me that the kingdom of the Germans — which today, as we see, has possession of Rome — is a part of the kingdom of the Franks. For, as is perfectly clear in what precedes, at the time of Charles the boundaries of the kingdom of the Franks included the whole of Gaul and all Germany, from the Rhine to Illyricum. When the realm was divided between his son's sons, one part was called eastern, the other western, yet both together were called the Kingdom of the Franks. So then in the eastern part, which is called the Kingdom of the Germans, Henry was the first of the race of Saxons to succeed to the throne when the line of Charles failed ... [western Franks discussed] ... Henry's son Otto, because he restored to the German East Franks the empire which had been usurped by the Lombards, is called the first king of the Germans — not, perhaps, because he was the first king to reign among the Germans

Given the discussion above, I thought some of you would be interested enough in this to make it worth my while typing it out. Distinguishing these things was hard even for 12th century bishops and members of the German imperial household! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an awesome quotation! It's a more succinct and accurate, comprehensible and reasonable account of what actually happened than one is likely to encounter from a modern historian. I think it ought to go in the article somewhere. Referring to the kingdom of the Germans as "having possession of Rome" is an excellent way summarising an argument I tried to make to Michael Sanders some time back that the relationship between Germany and the Empire was something like the former possessing the later: in the German kings' opinion by right, in the Pope's opinion by their approval. "Rhine to Illyricum" is accurate for the boundaries of "Germany" in Charlemagne's time. "When the realm was divided between his son's sons, one part was called eastern, the other western." Asides from the simplification, it is essentially accurate: the realm thenceforth had two halves yet was still one regnum Francorum. "Henry was the first of the race of Saxons to succeed to the throne when the line of Charles failed." True: Henry was the first Saxon to succeed to the (German) throne of Charles' line after it failed. And Otto, because he conquered Italy ("the empire which had been usurped by the Lombards", Carolingian Italy was referred to as an empire in foreign sources, i.e. from West Francia), was the first German king of that realm, first German emperor.
Your time was certainly not wasted. My day has been brightened. Srnec (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry there, missed your reply. The source says "ad been usurped by the Lombards" because the Lombard kings were ruling as emperors; this becomes obvious in Otto's list of emperors. That cuts off the real emperors at Irene, being transferred to the the Franks [with Charlemagne], taken by the Lombards [from Louis], and then with Otto I taken by the Germans. The source could usefully be inserted in the first unexpanded section. Do you need the cite details, or shall I add it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Even more interesting. I agree that it would make a good addition to the article. You can add it yourself, or if you'd like just give me the necessary details and I'll add it. Whichever way you please. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Language barrier?

I think the problem of this huge debate is that there's simply no English translation of the words kaiser, khan, tsar etc. In English they are all called "monarchs" or "kings", it seems? What they all have in common is the fact that they were the bosses of certain regions and subregions. Different terms, but the same function.

Was Karl the Great a king or a kaiser?

Was Ivan the Terrible a king or a tsar?

Was Kublai Khan a king or a khan?

What's the difference between Japan and Nippon? In English language there's no Nippon. In Japanese there's no Japan. Did a German Kingdom exist, or did a Deutsches Kaiserreich exist? Debates solely on word definitons are endless. Why? Because everybody is right in light of his or her native vocabulary. There's no ultimately true meta language deciding which phrase describes the function of a boss correcter than the other. Just my opinion. – Sayonara --Suaheli (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Karl was King (= "König") of the Franks and roman emperor (= "Kaiser"), so where so later German kings first king and later emperor. English "king" and German "König" share the same origin. "Kaiser" derrives from "Caesar" where as "emperor" comes from "imperator" which means the same in latin. Latin was the common language in the Middle Ages, so you where a "rex" or an "imperator". "Deutsches Kaiserreich" would be wrong, there was no "German Kaiser". "German Kingdom" means "Deutsches Königreich".--84.190.209.77 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, there was no "Deutsches Kaiserreich". Sorry, my fault. But my point was that those guys were all – in other words – "bosses of large regions"; this is the function what they all have in common, just the name of their titles vary from culture to culture. So, to me, it looks like this long debate above is not about historical hierarchies per se, but about title translations only. I think it's impossible to translate every word of a language literally to another language. The word "tsar", too, comes from "Caesar", but Russia wasn't really a Roman region. Some "bosses" had a huge empire, greater than that of Julius Caesar. Still, they called themselves "king" instead of "kaiser" (rex instead of imperator). For example, in some countries that chief with the greatest power is called "president", in other countries "chancellor". Now one could debate about the question whether the titles vary or the functions vary. Their power remains the same. The events remain the same. – That's what I'm trying to say. --Suaheli (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is indeed historiographic rather than historical: the German kingdom existed, there is no doubt about it. Nationalism and counter-nationalism have a lot to do with discrepancies. The Germans became very nationalistic sometime during the nineteenth century. Then Hitler happened. Now the Germans are about the last people in Europe who want to sound nationalistic, so a lot of Germans have come here trying to deny the existence of an entity justifiably and historically labelled "Kingdom of Germany" in the English academic (and popular) literature because they fear it creates a false notion of a "German nation" before there was one and therefore plays into the hands of German nationalists. Of course, many persons with grudges against Germany for what happened decades or even centuries ago also dislike the notion of a medieval German state because they believe it grants legitimacy to a modern German nation-state encompassing large swathes of territory currently outside Germany. The "Kingdom of Germany" or "German Kingdom" (the terms do not define different things in English) was not a nation-state as we today understand the term. There is no danger that it plays into the hands of German nationalism or that it means that the Netherlands ought to be a part of Germany. It encompassed Germanophone, Francophone, and Italophone territories, various regna (realms) such as Bavaria, Swabia, and Saxony, and different peoples (Franks, Saxons, Alemanni, etc.). It covered territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and from what is today eastern France to what is today the Czech Republic. It is not a direct predecessor of the modern state of Germany, though there is an unbroken line of "Germanies" from the treaty of Verdun until today (though some were not sovereign states). I was going to go on to discuss the historiography a little more, but I fear that I may be rambling... Srnec (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

@Suaheli: I get your point but I don't think this is the basic problem here. The understanding of what is "king" in the English-speaking and "König" in the German-speaking world is pretty much the same. Nobody denies that thoses German kings were kings and roman emperors when they were crowned by the pope. The problem in this context is whether the labeling as "German" for both kings and the kingdom/empire is justified since the kings always used to call themselves "rex romanorum" and the empire Holy Roman Empire. The less-worthy "German" connotation seems to be very disliked among those rulers. I can pretty much agree to Srnec's thoughts about feelings many Germans have about their older history. This certainly has to do with 19th century's nationalists and the nazis but also with German-speaking countries that don't like to be called "a part of Germany" some hundret years ago...--84.190.226.38 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The kings sometimes refered to themselves as German during the Middle Ages. The use of rex Romanorum was ideological and rather reinforces their German-ness. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Srnec and 84.190.226.38 – thank you for your feedback. Well, OK, if the basic question is as to whether the empire is a German one or a Roman one, then I see your point as well. On the other hand, this, too, is a debate solely on name definitions. So, nobody can give an ultimately true answer, as those name definitions are too subjective (everything but math is subjective, this one, however, is extremely subjective, just think of the great variety of diverse sources). – Secondly, as for "Srnec's thoughts about feelings many Germans have about their older history": Hmm, this hypothesis sounds a bit too simple and too generalized to me. Let me add three thoughts on this:
1. Those Germans who have nationalistic feelings would be proud to call the empire German instead of Roman.
2. Those Germans who have less or no nationalistic feelings could be devided in two tendencies:
a. Those who keep their eyes closed because they don't want to see the ugly past: They don't mind whether it's called Roman or German, they are not interested anyway.
b. Those who are analytic and critical: They neither prefer the word "Roman" nor the word "German", they have no specific feelings for one or the other word, they just want a clean analysis.
And this just a start. I think if we get into socio-psychological hypotheses the topic gets overwhelmingly complex and subjective. (P.S.: Just out of curiosity, 84.190.226.38, you are a native German speaker, right? I have never seen English speakers using the @-sign to address a person.) – Best regards --Suaheli (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It was never my intention to delve into socio-psychological hypotheses, only to share my hunch about some "collective guilt". I agree with your first point: German anti-nationalism is therefore quite likely to overreact (as so many counter-movements do) and seek to dispel any notion of a German nation/state prior to the Napoleonic wars/1871. Those in your cateory 2a might care whether it's Roman or German, in order not to see it [as part of their ugly past] they could simply deny its German-ness, no? Those in 2b would choose the word they think best and argue for its superiority (or they might reject both words as idealogical/normative and not descriptive). But this isn't about Roman vs German, rather it is about whether an entity called the "Kingdom of Germany" existed or not. It did, the article has been designed to prove that. Any argument against the "Kingdom of Germany" on purely terminological grounds is a waste of time, I believe. Srnec (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"Any argument against the 'Kingdom of Germany' on purely terminological grounds is a waste of time, I believe." – I concur. That's what I've been trying to say. – Best regards --Suaheli (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

@Suaheli: funny, I did never realize the @ symbol is not used by non-Germans, I hope this would be the only thing that blew my cover ;P As for your analysis: sounds pretty much as the way I feel about this. @Smec: I think its both: many German writers use to call the HRE the (first) German Empire which is mostly been countered by the fact that the HRE consisted of more than just "Germany" which is categorized as both poltical entity and a territory of (mostly) German speaking people, AND the fact that the HRE would have never been about German-ness but about Roman-ness and being holy and so forth. A German character of the Empire cannot be denied and so one could pick out the German kingdom which did function as separate entity within the Empire, or let's say it was the heart of the empire and therefore to a certain extend identical. And because we have evidence that this kingdom was called "German" in the middle ages it is easier to just deny its categorization as kingdom and therefore its existence... man, I think I lost my point ^^ btw: you said the kings did refer to themselves as "German". The only thing I can recall is Frederick Barbarossa writing about getting the "crown of the German regnum" but never actually a king calling himself "rex teutonicorum" or the like.--84.190.255.130 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State

From the history of the article:

  • 12:44, 8 June 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Gillingham does not say it was a state, and he mentions that the kings had no ability to raise taxes which suggests it was not a state
  • 00:03, 9 June 2008 Srnec ( (rv since a kingdom is a state) (undo)
  • 18:43, 11 June 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (revert to last version by PBS the source does not support the contention that it was a state. If it does which page and paragraph?)
  • 21:16, 11 June 2008 Srnec (the use of the word "kingdom" supports the contention, see kingdom)

At the moment it is written in the article that "The term rex Teutonicorum, or "king of the Germans", first came into recorded formal use during the Investiture Controversy perhaps as a polemical tool against Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Gregory VII in the late eleventh century" if true then the there does not have to be a state. Srnec you cite Gillingham. Where in his pamphlet does Gillingham claim that the kingdom was a state? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In the title? I don't have the pamphlet and I cannot recall him referring to it as a "state", but I don't see that that's an issue, since there should be no controversy in referring to it as a state. Also, don't forget that there is a probably usage of the term regnum teutonicorum dating to the early tenth century and there is no need to regard the papal formulation as completely original. Gillingham, in another work, does seem clear enough:
The medieval kingdom of Germany was a conglomerate, an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent peoples and kingdoms, gentes and regna. So too, of course, were the kingdoms of France and England. But the boundaries of the Reich were even more uncertain than those of France and England. The ruler's standard title was simply rex; there was no German equivalent of rex Francorum or rex Anglorum—titles which at least seemed to make clear just who the king's subjects were. Moreover, Germany was always a highly regionalized society. Yet for all the strength of local loyalties and the fuzziness at its edges Germany remained a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages. (Opening sentences of Elective Kingship and the Unity of Medieval Germany, German History, 9:2 (1991:June).)
Is that enough? We have the testimony of Barbarossa and of Otto of Freising. I'm sure I could scrounge up more. I believe Averkorn in her paper referenced in this article speaks of the German "state". Must we really argue over whether a kingdom (for which sources are numerous and not hard to find) is a state or not? Srnec (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)