The HRE Was Actually Holy, Roman and an Empire
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 05. 2024
- Voltaire BTFO'd
Join our Discord: / discord
The concept of sacrum imperium in historical scholarship:
compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
Footage:
Barbarossa, 2009
Charlemagne, 2013
Music:
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Clemency of Titus
Crusader Kings II Soundtrack - The Holy Sepulchre
Crusader Kings II Soundtrack - Journey to Absolution
Imperator: Rome Soundtrack - Hegemony
Imperator: Rome Soundtrack - Caesarion
00:00 Intro
01:29 Origins of the Quote
03:00 Holy
08:59 Roman
14:54 Empire
Voltaire has been really quiet since this video dropped.
top 10 intellectuals Voltaire was too afraid to diss
Uh, Voltaire is dead, idiot. I swear some people are so dumb these days.
Racistaire is arguably the most overated intellectual of modern history.
Maybe voltaire's ghost might want to comment?
Voltaire was right.
“Controversial and serious video posted on April 1st and passed on as a joke at first glance” is my favorite video genre
The fact that he was genuine blew my mind
dunno, for me it was posted on the 2nd of April lmao
Yup
I saw the name of this video and then noticed it was released in April. Had a thought it would be an epic April fool’s joke
And here we are.
This has to be satire then, because no one can be this dumb.
Voltaire was just jealous that he was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire.
I mean it was.
He was a neolatin though.
Funnily enough there could be some truth to that claim considering that the French were envious of the titles, crown and diplomatic + religious influences of the HRE ever since its inception. All of that has its roots in the Western vs Eastern Frankish Kingdom rivalry.
If Voltaire were alive today, he'd be a Redditor
Adam Ruins Everything is the modern Voltaire.
Tbf he was shitposting there
@@AUniqueHandleName444That’s giving Adam Comb-over way too much credit.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe I think the problem was giving Voltaire too much credit.
My Man died from Copium.💀
As the HRE PR manager I have two things to say:
Thank you.
How much do I owe you for your service?
million Reichsmarks.
Lmao
Stay away from large bodies of water
@@rreee.rrrooroo5626 💀💀💀💀💀 what a good piece of advice.
Frederick, as a duke of Bohemia give me my Royal title already 😠
In all seriousness, it's just unreasonable to judge the HRE as something that didn't evolve and change over its millenium long existence. There were times it very much did live up to its name, and there were times where it was far closer to the Voltaire quote. Take any point where you can go 1,000 years forward or backwards in the Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire and it'll look vastly different, with government vastly differently structured.
Yet the point of the video still stands - HRE consistently was holy, roman and held 3 kingdom titles.
@@arsray7285yes, and the imperial title was so prestigous, that Emperor Francis II. needed to pay with prestige to destroy the title in 1806. He even created another empire-tier title beforehand so that he could switch main title because you can't destroy your main title
@@deutschermichel5807 I see, a men of culture.
@@deutschermichel5807 the people skills diplomatic play of 1806.
Meanwhile the EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE, was constantly Holy, Roman and an empire for all of it's history, not a republic at one time and a kingdom at another, always it was a Holy Roman Empire, which g*rms in their anger and frustration of still being barbarians, called them greeks rather than ROMANS
It’s crazy how several US presidents had actual opinions on the HRE as a fellow political entity, even some while still in office.
Crazier is the USA was a close ally of the country which ultimately destroyed the HRE, Napoleonic France.
In fact we joined Napoleon in one of his Coalition Wars.
In America we call it the War of 1812.
@@omarali262Rome isn't still in charge?
Ive seen all of my Presidents bow down to the Pope so I'm skeptical its ended at the time of Napoleon.
I mean 7/9 of the Supreme Court is Catholic and the President is Catholic.
I think they're just quieter now but definitely still here...
I say "quieter" but I am implying sneaky slimy Jesuits.
I want to be clear.
@@ChristinaFromCZcamsmate, the catholics have no power in the US. In the end, Judea won
@@ChristinaFromCZcamsLOL if you think Catholics are overrepresented in the corridors of government wait until you see this other group
Trouble with HRE is kinda the same as the Ottomans and their image of being the "sick man of Europe". People only remember them in the state of the final decline, not the long and glorious past
Same phenomenon as the Habsburg Empire; armchair historians go way too hard on the Ottoman Empire because it doesn't fit into the modern ideal of a nation-state
Ottomans is a good example. The undisputed most powerful empire in the world by far during the 1500s. Conquered half of Eastern Europe to Vienna and Kyiv, and south to Ethiopia and even Zanzibar. West to Morocco, east to Iran and beyond. Colonies in Indonesia and Western China, huge trade routes. Was the main reason why Europe had to turn west to America. Center of art, culture, and learning for centuries, with cutting edge technology and a lot of religious tolerance. Yet most people will only know it as "WWI sick guy lolol". Even in WWI they did tremendously well, recapturing the Caucasus, Egypt, and resisting the two most powerful states in the world and massive rebellion for a good six years, and even managed to get some concessions from Britain and France in return.
@@precariousworlds3029 Center of art, culture and learning? Lmao the Ottomans were never good at art, the Europeans at the time perfected art and produced artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci, Ottoman art pales in comparison. And what learning, the Ottomans refused to adopt the printing press which made education harder
@@theotheagendashill818 A lot of previous scholarly works from the Islamic world and Silk Road were introduced into Europe by the Ottomans, including the rediscovery of many classical texts from Roman and Greek antiquity. The stability the empire provided in comparison to the chaos of Post-1204 Byzantium allowed for this.
Just look at some of the Ottoman Art and Architecture in this period, like the Blue Mosque, mosaics and calligraphy. It's incredible.
@@precariousworlds3029 Religious tolerance? I suppose if you go by the islamic definition of 'tolerance', i.e. invasion, murder, rape, destruction, and forced conversion; then you're right, they were very religiously tolerant.
Funnily enough, in Spanish. The Holy Roman Empire is called the "Sacro Imperio Romano".
Which has literally the same meaning as the latin name, so this misconception never spread in the Hispanic world.
I'd even say Iberian. It's the same with Portuguese, the sole difference is we call it Império.
@@LukeSky2207 Based Iberia strikes again
in italian it's "Sacro Romano Impero"
In hungarian we just call it the german-roman empire.
@@fureszadam3160 Another name for it in Spanish is "Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico" (so Holy Roman Germanic Empire).
So we're still on point
*The Holy Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years, making it one of the longest-running empires in history.*
It confuses me how much people tend to forget that.
Partially due to its very loose nature, it didn’t really have a need for its member states to overthrow it
@@chiveschivian9965 But could very well have been destroyed earlier by outside invaders if it was as weak as people made it out to be.
It was an important point in Nazi propaganda. They wanted their "Third Reich" to last a thousand years like the HRE.
It wasn't an empire.
@@zetsubou9780 So what is your arbitrary definition of an empire? My guess is that yours will exclude basically every single empire ever. The most used definition of an empire is "An extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority", no one matches the description better than the Holy Roman Empire.
30% Holy
30% Roman
40% Empire
100% *GERMAN*
More like
40% Holy (The Empire is Holy in the sense that it was mostly Christian and had a lot of Symbolic Power in the Christian World)
10% Roman (Roman culture was preserved but the application is mostly symbolic and its Romaness is legally dubious)
50% Empire (It is an Empire, its a collection of different states with a diverse population and at times was actually a powerhouse worthy of t name, the Habsburgs at one point has control of the HRE and Spain making it very powerful in the process.)
The German part is more like 80% the rest are Italians, Czechs, Hungarians and Belgians.
As a German.. I totally agree.. I love my history .. Most of it... Well, not really... Nothing.. Because then I'm a Nazi 😂
Just kidding.. I'm very proud and I don't think it's good to demonize our history and only talk about it from the Allied point of view. Just because of the 12 dark years.. There was a big difference between Nazis, Germans and Wehrmacht soldiers.. Also, not everything is black and white.. Sure, there was a lot of black.. But Hitler didn't just say stupid things.. Sure he was crazy.. But everything about the Versailles Treaty and that the most important inventions come from the "Aryan" race is more or less correct..
I think we should be prouder and clearly separate the dark 12 years from everything else because we have such an old history and the Nazis just took good old Germanic or German things and interpreted them very dark.. The Nazis invented almost nothing.. As I said, only used things in a dark way like Germany Germany over all.. Was not meant that we stand over all in the original meaning..
@@frontgamet.v1892
Bruder. Niemand hat hier vom zweiten Weltkrieg geredet. Und du schreibst einfach ein Buch drüber . Why ?
“Friggin Germanic barbarians taking our names and titles!” 😂
@@vinz4066 Es scheint, dass viele unserer Volksgenossen Schwierigkeiten haben über ihren eigenen Schatten zu springen.
The HRE, despite being a husk of itself after 1648, still deserves credit for lasting roughly 1000 years and being able to adapt through social changes/revolutions.
Not 1000 years
@@hopeundertheblacksunFrom 800 to 1800s, 1000 years.
@@LordVader1094 it ceased existing after the death of Charlemagne and was only re instated by Otto the great in the 10th century.
This is late but it did symbolically survive for a bit until Otto the great
No it didn't, emperors were in fact crowned left and right for about 110 years after charlemagnes death. Only in 924, after emperor berengars death, did the title become vacant, and only because the pope refused to crown the three roman kings after him. Only then did otto swoop in and take the crown.@@hopeundertheblacksun
"Quite like a better part of Voltaire's sayings, this one sounds very clever, but reveals a shallowness of understanding upon closer inspection."
What a magnificent thesis statement.
isn´t that the essence of French "philosophy"? David Starkey: "all stupid ideas come from France"
@@riccardodececco4404 It is certainly the essence of enlightenment philosophy, French or not.
@@thomassimmons1811 Exactly right.
@@riccardodececco4404The amount of dorky French haters and Enlightenment detractors who just like to showcase their utter ignorance to the world in this comment section is truly staggering!
@@DaDa-ui3sw have you even ever read any philosophical treatise?
9:18 depicting others as Adam Conover is more unflattering than using Wojaks.
the proto wojak. protojak
@@FlameQwert protwojak uwu
The amount of absolute idiotic fools that still take him even remotely seriously is still extremely . . . unfortunate, to say the least.
I'm just playing games, I know that's Plaastice Loooove
fun fact, the German "Heiliges Römisches Reich" may at first glance translate to "Holy Roman Empire" but even without pulling up its latin name, it can be translated as "Sacred Roman Empire"
this is because "Heilig" means both "Holy" and "Sacred" in german
Yes, in German language, there is hardly a differentiation between the concepts of “Holy” and “Sacred” - „Heilig“ just means both and we tend to nether differentiate. There is, however, another word: „Sakral“, which comes from the very Latin adjective form of “Sacrum”. With „Sakral“ very sacred things or practices are described, although this word is not often used. An example would be a temple by the Mayas or a sacrificial ritual - these would be called sakral. This idea of “Sacredness” is contained in the German word „Heilig“, but combined with the religious element = therefore „Heiliges Römisches Reich“ awakens connotations of Christian, especially Catholic universality but also the sacred duty of the imperial universal rule
Holy and Sacred basically have the same meaning in English, as well, with sacred being slightly broader and can mean things that are not necessarily related to religion.
in old German dialects i imagine that there certainly may be but it doesn't really matter since nobody would have even considdered how the english would translate it even in the 18th century, back then French and Latin were the closest thing to a lingua franca, even German was more widespread due to the large population of German speakers on the continent.
In ancient languages these two words where still thoroughly distinguished.
In Latin we have sacer and sānctus, which are differentiated with different conotations, but also combined into sacrōsānctus.
On the other hand, Germanic languages also had multiple words like "weih" (as in modern Weihnachten) and "heilig/holy".
I would identify "weih" with "sacer" and "heilig/holy" with "sanctus" for many reasons. For example, "sacrum" as a noun can mean "holy object" or "shrine".
The Old Norse Vé and the Old English wēoh and OHG wīh (which come from the same sourse as "weih") have a very similar meaning.
For more: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9_(shrine)
"Heiliges römisches Reich" might today be the common translation for "Sacrum imperium romanum", but I don't think it was originally called like that.
The Latin word likely came first.
It might have been called differently in the Old High German period.
Apperently "there was a real competition for the right word [for "holy"] between the Anglo-Saxon missionaries in northern Germany and the Celtic preachers coming from Ireland and Scotland who worked in southern Germany."
According to this article: www.welt.de/kultur/article135659168/Sprechen-Sie-Christlich.html
@@Jon-mh9lk bruh the "weih" in "weihnachten" means "blessed"
we don't call frankincense "weihrauch" because it's holy, it's literally called "blessing-smoke" because that is it's purpose
Your research done about the holy part is impressive and imo quite accurate, well done
Among all the three Reichs, HRE was the only one that came closest to a thousand year Reich
I'm glad you fit in the Crusader Kings joke. Paradox gaming reignited my interest in history
cringe
@@gimmertyfrog755 fringe
@@gimmertyfrog755 🐸
I know right! I've racked up 100 hours in the game since I started 2 months ago!
@@gimmertyfrog755Hearts of Iron is cringe nothing wrong with Crusader Kings
The English word "empire" is actually ambiguous. In German we have different words like "
"Kaisertum", "Kaiserreich", "Reich", "Imperium" (from Latin) and "Empire" (from English).
▪︎At one hand, "empire" means a state governed by a monarch who is called an emperor rather than a king*), no matter its size. This is what "Kaiserreich" refers to, in rarer cases "Kaisertum" as well but the latter rather stands for the institution of an emperor.
▪︎At the other hand, a state is called an empire if it's very large and exceeds the nation state, for instance by a state having colonies. The head of this state _may_ be an emperor but also a king or not even a monarch but a president like in the French empire after Napoleon III's fall.
In German, this is referred to by "Imperium" or "Empire", or "Reich". The last, however, may also refer to a nation state which is not even a monarchy for some historical reasons. When the German Kaiser abdicated after WW1, the Reich became a federal republic but stuck to the name "Reich ". Of course, it continued to do so after being centralized by the nazis.
____
*) I don't even know what is the exact difference since the eastern Roman emperors from Herakleios onwards used the term "Basileus" which also means king.
The translation of foreign titles such as Chinese or Japanese also
More relevantly, empire had the context of an absolutely sovereign authority - at a time when nation-states and their sovereignty didn't really exist - including nominal sovereignty over lesser kings under their orbit. That was why it was called Roman - as they asserted a degree of sovereignty over the entire of Western Europe that Rome had controlled - plus Germanic and Slavic territories that Charlemagne had conquered.
This was a serious politico-theological concept to people back then, no matter how ridiculously the Emperor's nominal claims and authorities may seem. Thomas Cromwell expressly justified Henry's role as head of the Church of England on the basis that Britain was an empire (one founded by Brutus of Troy), albeit temporarily under Roman control. Thus Henry had the right to cast off whatever obeisance was felt legally necessary to both the Emperor and the Pope. In reality the English never really accepted the sovereignty of the emperor anyway, and various laws from the medieval era tended to confirm that outside courties etc. had no power in England but it was never fully expressed with such clarity and without room for some kind of residual feudal relation between king and emperor until Thomas Cromwell laid it out. These events were the first stirrings of what eventually because the Westphalian settlement that rendered the HRE, finally, a dead letter. Although this model of empire survived outside Europe well into the 20th century in say, Turkey, Persia or China.
In Medieval Greek Basileus had the meaning of Emperor. Regas was the term for king in Medieval Greek, derived from Latin rex.
@@minutemansam1214
I didn't know, THX.
@@minutemansam1214 In Ancient Greek Basileus could mean what we would approximately call a king today though. The Persian king was called Basileus Basileōn or what we would call king of kings or Basileus Megas which is a title Alexander took over after his conquest of the Persian empire. Notably legitimate heritary kings were called basileus in contrast to dictators who had seized power in coups who were usually called tyrannos.
We don't use Empire in german.
Italy really slipped from imperial control after the death of Henry VII, whom Dante Alighieri held in high regard as a reformer who came to italy before she knew she needed one. He was the last emperor to really pursue an italian policy, which was cut short by his sudden death in 1313
"Italy" "she". I find interesting how people from romance language speaking countries seems to try to put gender in everything. I also do that.
@@silentsurvivor2082 it is not that we seek to put genders, it's the grammar of our languages that (unlike English or Greek) doesn't have a gender neutral. (In Spanish the "neutral" is "El" which means Him
@@silentsurvivor2082 It is actually pretty traditional: countries, like ships, were called 'she' in English and referred to in the feminine until the 20th century.
@@forthrightgambitia1032yes there are some really interesting conventions regarding the grammatical sex of objects. In the German language, ships are always feminine, cars masculine and restaurants/hotels neuter.
@@D19DMO128D didn't say that wasn't the case, just that the romance languages don't have a neutral pronoun lol
I already knew the HRE was all these things because it's in the name.
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist Modern historians would have an easier time if they just paid attention to the name of what they're studying smh
Based
The name doesn't always tell the truth. Take the "peoples republic" of north korea and the "peoples repulic of china", or the former "german democratic republic"...
None of them qualify as republic, the two claiming to be of their peoples are not really considering their peoples and there was little democratic about the GDR apart from it's end.
@@deutschermichel5807concur
huh@@holloww_dwella
I think the HRE and its history is really cool if you look at is as a separate entity to the Roman Empire.
Very true. If one looks at it as a separate entirely separate of the Roman empire it's history and structure is really Cool. And I bet it would make a fantastic idea for a novel
@@Id_k_ absolutely agree
@@Id_k_ Funnily enough, that is the basis of what I'm writing right now.
Peace be with you in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ. Viva La Catholica. The Holy Roman Empire is just like the modern European Union.
That's because it is a separate entity of the Roman Empire. Heck, pretty sure they didn't call themselves the 'Holy Roman Empire' until several hundred years after the empire 'formed'.
It's a Germanic empire. That took the name 'Roman Empire' because the pope at the time of the empire's foundation didn't like that the current Roman Empire was ruled by a woman(it's petty as hell but pretty typical early Christian history).
The reason why the empire was such a mess(map wise at least) was because Germanic leaders have this weird succession condition that instead of the eldest son inheriting everything, they split the lands among themselves. It also didn't help that the church owned their own lands. It's a mess.
“I must give you a piece of intelligence that you perhaps already know - namely, that the ungodly arch-villain Voltaire has died miserably like a dog - just like a brute. That is his reward!”
-Mozart
Not a problem in Norwegian: Here it’s called “The German-Roman State”, no one can argue argue about that!
thats a good naming! ;)
This underlines the platitude or shrumpness ( due to cold temperatures) of norwegian brains.
@@ezzovonachalm9815 what
@@ezzovonachalm9815to call something plainly is to be small-brained?
@@Potacintvervsit’s correct but not what they called themselves not what anyone else calls them
I would like to add to your final point by commenting on the kingdom of France during the time of Henry ii of England
Massive parts of France were brought under his rule and command only and just through marriages, would this make you not call royaume de France not a kingdom? No!
This is quite natural and normal in a feudal system
Henry was a vassal so no.
@@johnnotrealname8168Frederick the Great and the Duke of Bavaria were also vassals of the Empire but nonetheless fought wars against each other
@@deutschermichel5807 So?
@@BillionsWillDie That is not what the original comment is about.
@@BillionsWillDie I think Henry II inaugurated the Angevin Empire.
Voltaire's quote tells us more about him and contemporary thought that surrounded him than it does the HRE subject matter itself - as is the case with all historical sources 😉
As is the case with modern academic sources.
ADDITION: The HRE idolised the Byzantines and copied their building projects and would attempt to marry Eastern Roman Princesses to bring Roman blood and Legitimacy into turn their German Empires. It must be known, they saw themselves as Frankish decendants, not Romans, but creating something even greater to honour God, in the shape of the great Empire of old.
Funnily enough many of the Byzantines they married were not exactly "Roman" or even Greek themselves. Many of the princesses married to HRE emperors and nobles were Greek-Armenian, straight up Armenian, and other ethnicities. I think there was one Georgian, iirc. Plus on the HRE side, there were also the descendents of the Alans and Huns, the former being ethnically Iranians, and the later being "asiatic." The world of the royalty was pretty diverse from an ethnic perspective, moreso than common folk.
Can I get a source on that? Sorry I just don’t trust anyone on the internet anymore.
@@Kingedwardiii2003 me?
@@floridaman318 Yeah, because it was more about culture and not about genetics.....
ERE was Roman, HRE was not...
@@floridaman318 Even though the ERE was ethically Greek, they were bearers of the legacy of the Roman Empire which hadn’t yet fallen to “barbarians”. There is such a difference as ethnically and culturally. Culturally, I am American. Ethnically, I am Rhine German, English, Scottish, Swiss German, Irish, and Italian, with a very small drop of Native American blood (so small it might not register at all on a dna test). The early modern rivals to the Ottomans weren’t ethnically Persian, but did become culturally. Up until around the start of the world wars, the British monarchy was ethically German, though I assume they saw themselves as British. People of the HRE were not ethnically Roman. They weren’t culturally Roman either. They looked to the legacy of the empire and said “I want to be him”
You should do a video on either the Russian third Rome thing and or did the Romans consider themselves still technically a Republic under the Senate during the late Roman/Byzantine era, especially after Leo the Wise reformed it?
The charade of Roman Republic continued during the principate but it's safe to say that all notions of the Empire being a Republic were dropped by the time of the dominate. A simple observation to confirm this lies with the color Tyrian purple. Purple was popular among the Roman Emperors for two reasons- one, it was very expensive to source; two, it was associated with royalty since the time of Phoenicians in the bronze age. During the Republic and Early empire, purple was only used during special events such as a Triumph to show the victor general/consul/princeps as someone close to a King- but not quite one- for a single day because during this period the Romans still despised the idea of Kingship. By the Dominate, however, Emperors flaunted the purple which shows that, over the centuries, the Romans had pretty much been successfully eased into the idea of a single man ruling Romania (Romanland) and he was special, almost divine.
Russia as the Roman successor state is such a good meme we need more of it
@@greyfells2829 as good as a meme as germans and then anglos and now americans thinking it lol
@@tlaloqq America isn't the heir to Rome, it is the reancarnation of Rome. Germany and England are heirs to Rome in their own way (England much more since it took over 25% of the entire planet)
@@greyfells2829coping
I think a lot of the perceived ridiculousness of medieval claims to Romanness has to do with a modern bias in favor of "classical Rome", whereas the medievals understandably viewed Rome in terms of its later, Christian phase. If we take a look at the late Roman empire, its relationship towards religion, even at things such as architecture* etc., we see a lot more similarities and even continuity between Rome and the post-Roman order than if we were to compare, let's say, the HRE or 14th Century Byzantium to the Rome of Caesar. In this light, these claims of empire translation lose a considerable chunk of their preposterousness. (One simply has to accept that elegant columns, paganism and all the "glory" would have been lost anyway at that point.)
(Not to forget, many important elements of the medieval order (the papacy, the Catholic church and its organisational structure) were crafted when the empire was still around.)
*Just compare late Roman or early post-Roman constructions such as San Vitale with Charlemagnes palace in Aachen, or how the "Byzantine style" 5th century architecture spread across Southern Eastern Europe for centuries to come.
Part of the problem is also that the medieval empire never had the high level of centralization, urban culture, and administrative sophistication that the ancient Roman Empire had. Medieval states were far less effective, more fragmented entities without a real capital city, ruled by feudal "primus inter pares" kings with itinerant courts. This in itself makes the term "Empire" almost sound like a hollow claim and much more like a paper construct than the "true" Roman Empire had ever been.
It was all of those things especially during the middle ages. Emperor Frederick Barbarossa literally launched a military invasion of northern Italy because the local nobles and burghers were ignoring imperial edicts. Imperial authority in those days was very real and was enforced throughout the Empire.
I honestly like the HRE. I think it's neat and was a greatly influencial. I also just hate Voltaire.
Very accurate.
Agree as well, he had some cool ideas but can come off as pretty smug and rude.
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 People that are better than others tend to come off as that. Only unskilled losers are truly humble; and they're only so because they're too weak & stupid to be anything but. The average joe reading this comment, for example.
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 he didn't have anything good to say. Voltaire was just the Redditor of his time.
@@trueblueclue actually laughed out loud at this, you're totally right.
I'm torn. On the one hand, the HRE was kind of silly. On the other, I hate Voltaire.
My thoughts exactly
trve
I love how in the movie Valkyrie, as Klaus Von Staffenburg was being executed by firing squad for trying to assassinate Hitler, his dying epitaph is: “Long live sacred Germany!”
He was definitely harkening back to this idea of the Sacred Roman Empire, which I really like the sound of and appreciate the perspective here!
Ja
Too bad him and his men were racists and war criminals themselves and they tried to assasinate Hitler merely for political reasons.
Shallowness of understanding is being kind. Perhaps it's better to state that it's not a good idea to let your enemies sum up your history. And a student of history should always keep this in mind. People have agendas, their agendas impose a lens upon your view of a subject.
(only) arguing based on Voltaire is like only reading Pravda in order to inform yourself about Capitalism
@@deutschermichel5807 hah.
The germans also have a lot of agendas regarding their own history. Thats what is the most ironic part of your comment.
Holy Roman Emperor Otto III is actually quite fondly remebered in Poland. He visited Poland in the year 1000 as a pilgrimage to St. Adalbert's relics, and meeting duke Boleslav I the Brave promised restoration of the Roman Empire as a federation of Germany, France, Italy & Western Slavdom with him as king of it (Poland, Lusatia, Czechia, Slovakia, Red Ruthenia). Sadly Otto III died not long after, but Boleslav later waged wars with the new emperor for some of this lands.
Fascinating that some guy's quote 250 years ago that was meant to piss people off is still pissing people off today
Edgy ngl
He's living in our minds rent free
That's more so due to the fact that numbskulls think they're intelligent for repeating his stupid quotes everywhere.
Well, he was WRONG
And people still believe him
So it's just to expose him
@@goyonman9655 maybe use his qoute in that context. Maybe you will understand what it is trying to say.
I recommend Edward Feser’s “What was the Holy Roman Empire?” on this important perspective.
Actually very good video, i hope it wasn't an Aprils fools video, cause now i am convinced to your statements
I'm so sick of hearing that damn quote in every HRE related video.
No wonder Voltaire died like a lonely dog
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist Ah yes, cutting people's stick off and blinding people. Truly civilized
@Daydy377.
Voltaire died not as a dog ( dogs are noble animals) but like a parasitic venenous insect !
Looks like Mozart had the last laugh
The hre wasn't holy, wasn't Roman nor was it an empire 😏
#Daydy377
Voltaire died not as a lonely dog ( a noble animal) but as a hyena he was
Voltairs quote is correct if you only look at the last years of the HRE but it completely ignores the other 900years of its existence.
I may be an Orthodox Byzaboo (though I love Western Rite Orthodoxy if you know what that is), but this video was like crack candy to me. I normally love succinct videos, but I wouldn't have minded if this dragged on for an hour even; in fact I just wanted more. And it breaks my heart that Napoleon is responsible for the death blow to the HRE. Alas, sic transit gloria mundi.
I mean imagine visiting the Holy Roman Empire in 2023. Better that than no Roman Empire. Thanks, Ottomans.
@@ssteelemember that while the Italian city-states which had long escaped the influence of the Holy Roman Empire, fought Constantinople and its Emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor always tried to defend the Orthodox Christians aganist the Turks. Even when the Byzantine Empire had been long dead and Ottoman rule in the Balkans strengthend, the Habsburgs kept on fighting the Turks until approximately the year 1900, lastly annexing Bosnia-Herzegowina from the Ottoman Empire, until they finally joined one side in the Great War
The Kings of France, however, often betrayed the Roman-German Emperors and allied with the Turks to fight the Empire
Napoleon was unfathomably based for finally getting rid of the german larpers and becoming the ultimate mega larper
@@deutschermichel5807 another reason to hate the French
@@deutschermichel5807 Sounds to me like a romanticized version of events. The HRE rulers didn't give a shit about orthodox Christians, they only acted when the Turks encroached on their own borders (including Hungary). They never provided guarantees or protection of any sort for the Christian populations of the Ottomans. Even the Russians can claim they did more than that. If anything, by providing zero assistance during the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and by implicitly supporting the Fourth Crusade (which also included crusaders from HRE who faced absolutely no repercussions), the HRE rulers did the opposite of defending anyone Orthodox. A policy that continued even after the death of HRE with suppression of the Balkan populations of Austria-Hungary, which together with its arrogance, led to its downfall.
I hate playing in the HRE because I always get elected emperor which kills my game goals
Got elected to Emperor as France accidently. Used to make my conquests to the Rhine easier
Just change your religion to other christian denominations. Or outright Islam. Oh god, Islamic Cologne would be soooo in line with current time events!
@@alifkazeryu8228 I got a submod called decline elections where I can use a decision to remove me from elections.
@@alifkazeryu8228 this meme is dead, go to Germany yourself and see that it's still distinctly German. Berlin, like all big cities, is more international. But places like Bavaria are almost too German lol
@@greyfells2829 yeah... I don't remember Cologne is anywhere near Bavaria
Voltaire also said the the British have 172 religions but only one sauce. 😂
"In elementray school I didn't like literature because it had simple motals and was useless. In highschool I started loving politics because they have simple morals and are useless"
- the ultimate guide to anything related to my youtube usage
The Hre was an empire because all German states were legally bound to support the Habsburgs in the case of a reichskrieg. This worked during the Nine Years’ War, War of Spanish Succession, War of Polish Succession, War of First Coalition, and War of Second Coalition. During the Seven Years’ War, an internal reichskrieg was declared against Prussia, so most German states turned against Prussia.
even after the peace of Wesphalia?
@@tompatterson1548 Yes. The last imperial war was waged against Revolutionary France actually.
There was a legal distinction between an imperial war (against foreign states) and an imperial execution (against inner states) but generally speaking you're correct.
Not to mention the Emperor's authority to institute a Reichsbann, no matter the station of its target.
I don't know why anyone would take Voltaire seriously, not only was he cringe, he was also, and may God forgive me for uttering this most foul word, a French.
Ja
Was voltaire that bad? I dont know much about philosophy in general
@@sapateirovalentin348 He wasn't, it's just that Voltaire criticized the church (rigthly so) because he found all the stories about God nonsensical and because the members of the church were corrupt as hell and acted more like kings/nobles/generals than priests. That's why freaks here hate Voltaire, that it's, just because he wasn't an insane catholic that wanted to assassinate all protestants or jewish people is the reason why he is so hated among these circles. Time gave Voltaire the reason, we get all kind of pedophilic scandals about the church nowadays and their connection with the italian mafia and politicians of a lot of countries, also the presence of weird sects inside it like Opus Dei, a group made up of wealthy catholic business men that influence politics in places like South America, Spain and Poland. So Voltaire didn't believe in christianity because he saw it as a tool used to by the upper classes to justity their despotic rules and corruption.
@@kitcloudkicker14No, we hate Voltaire since he was a smug idiot who professed blatant distortions of scripture and Church theology among other loony ideas.
@@sapateirovalentin348 Voltraire is like the first redditor in history, whatever you think about r/atheism is what most people back then thought about voltaire. And that is mostly cringe.
This is a breath of fresh air in the sea of subversive history being taught everywhere nowadays.
I highly recommend to read Peter Wilson's book about HRE. It explains that decentralized structure of empire was the source of its durability and agility as well as Liberty (at least by standards of that time).
Yes the Holy Roman Empire's Dukes and Princes claimed the „Deutsche Libertät” (German Liberty) for themselves in order to protect their regional interests aganist the globalist interests of the Emperor
noted, thank you for the recommendation!
I know the book, I have it, it's very interesting and it explains in detail all the thousand years of the HRE, the only bad thing is that it's really huge to read.
but it fits 1000 pages for 1000 years of history.
Great book!
I think the HRE was pretty cool
It was cool, just not Roman.
Very cool
@@Michael_the_Drunkard no, it was Holy Roman 😉
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Depends of your definition of Roman
@@bioemiliano the greeks were roman since they had been citizens of the empire since the 2nd century
Would love to see a video on Theodoric the Great and the Ostrogothic kingdom with this idea. I’ve held the idea for awhile that he was a de facto Roman Emperor as well.
Neither Jolly, Nor Woman, Nor a Vampire
Honestly, the best way to make fun of the Holy Roman Empire is to point out that the entire justification for its existence is based on a proven forgery (The Donation of Constantine). I think that's a way funnier and more damning observation than the Voltaire quote.
whats the donation of constantine?
@@mihailupu5107 Obviously there is a Wikipedia article, but in brief:
The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope... it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy
@@mihailupu5107
The Donation of Constantine supposedly dates to the 4th Century. It states that Constantine the Great, before leaving Rome, became extremely ill. However after the Pope cured Constantine of his illness, Constantine granted jurisdiction of the whole Western Empire to the Pope.
This donation is what the Pope used to justify crowning Charlemagne. Constantine had given the West to the Pope, and thus the Pope had the right to transfer control of the west from Irene to Charlemagne.
Only one problem. The Donation is a forgery. It was not written in the 4th Century despite trying to present itself as such. It was forged somewhere around the 8th Century. The document was not proven to be a hoax until the late 15th Century, although there had been suspicions prior.
The Popes at the time knew they had no case. So they forged a fake document to justify crowning Charlemagne Emperor. I just find that really funny. The Holy Roman Empire's entire reason for existing is based on a fake document, that by the 16th Century they *knew* was fraudulent.
@@mihailupu5107 It's a document forged somewhere during the late 8th century AD that allegedly states that when Constantine the Great was moving the capital to Constantinople back in 330 AD, he gave the whole authority over the Western Empire to the Pope. That claim was used by the Catholic church to declare that the sole privilege to declare and dismiss Roman emperors was in Pope's hands.
@@justinian-the-great It wasn't forged, I was there.
I love the fact you know that part of your audience are paradox players.
HRE seems like a really chill place to live compared to it's neighbors
But during the 15th-17th century, if you happen to have the "wrong" religion, you're as good as a nonentity.
"Cuius regio, eius religio"
Other than that, you're correct. Ferdinand I was a chill dude. And it's all thanks to him that there were no significant religious wars in the HRE until the rise of Calvinism and the Thirty Years' War.
I’ve got an Italian name spelled german style and my family is catholic
They came to the United States after the breakup of the “empire”
HRE definitely was holy, Roman and an empire
I may not really give a shit on whether people see the HRE as Roman or not, but I will definitely call anyone who uses Voltaires quote a pretentious dimwit now.
Sometimes Voltaire quotes are true and accurate and cutting. Its pretentious and dinwitted to automatically dismiss anyone quoting Voltaire. He really does have a lot of awesome quotes. Theres a reaosn people still quote him to this day.
@@waltonsmith7210
*it's called a joke, friend*
There’s a fine line between being ironic and being serious, and people on the internet can’t always tell, friend
6:23 As someone who's quite familiar with and has always been interested in the theological aspects behind the statue in the book of Daniel, there's something I'm surprised has been omitted here.
You're right that the statue had symbolic metallic components consisting of gold (Babylon), silver (Persia), bronze (Macedonia), and iron (Rome), but you've missed the last component - the feet of clay mixed with iron, which many interpret to be another power that succeeds Rome.
Such interpretations of who this mystery kingdom succeeding Rome is have ranged from (hilariously) the EU to (maybe more understandably) the Anglo-American powers of today. So I'm curious how the feet of clay mixed with iron representing another power were interpreted in the role of the Holy Roman Empire.
For those interested, the feet of iron mixed with the clay is typically seen as an entity that still exists today but is split into two (much in the same way that the iron legs of the statue are seen as representative of east and west Rome).
This is because at the end of the dream of the statue in Daniel, the entire statue is destroyed when a large stone strikes it at its feet. The stone is interpreted as the everlasting kingdom of God which, unlike the mortal empires of metal, is infinite and will never fall.
Yeah, good point. "Fifth Monarchism" was (is) certainly a thing. I've omitted it because as with most thing in history, if you dig a little deeper there is another interesting thing, which will be great to discuss. And I didn't have enough time to make an hour-long video.
@@RomabooRamblings Aye, understandable. It can get rather complex focusing on the exact theological interpretations and discrepancies.
Btw, great video! I think I still have something of an issue with the 'Roman' aspect to the HRE, but the 'Holy' and 'Empire' parts are perfectly understandable.
The forgery of the 'Donation of Constantine' is rather damning imo to the states quote on quote 'legitimacy', and it's formation is akin to France seizing control of Washington while the USA is divided and proclaiming itself to be the new America.
@@RomabooRamblings Peace be with you in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ. Viva La Catholica. The Holy Roman Empire is just like the modern European Union.
Perhaps the iron mixed with clay represents 2 empires that co-existed since why would they be mixed? If I say what nation it is, it would be a nation that challenged Rome, and that is Carthage. But I don't know much about the book of Daniel to begin with but I just wanted to suggest an idea, or maybe it represents the split of the Roman Empire?
But as I said I am not an expert on these stuff.
@@RomabooRamblingswas this video meant to be a joke? Or for real because you released it on April fools day aka April1st.
A Middle german prince wrote the script for this video
And I am here for it.
Thank you for clarifying where the quote comes from. I too could not find the quote in the English translation of "Annals of the Empire" and I thought that he had never said it in the first place. From how the annals were written, I thought Voltaire actually liked the Empire as an institution as there were not many polemics against it. Such a quote would have been out of place, so it is quite fitting for him to not include it.
Ohh my god thanks! You have no idea how much I need this video
This is an absolutely excellent video, and absolutely one of the best I have seen on CZcams, maybe ever.
Finally a video I can link to instead of writing a mini essay whenever someone uses that quote. Luv u man
Thank you!
Thank you from the bottom of my heart!
I've been making this bloody point to many people across the past 15years!
Best regards
Raoul G. Kunz
The sometimes Holy, Never Roman, Sometimes Empire
Maybe Germanic
Always g*rman
@@Vajrapani108 gispie
@@Vajrapani108 Lol streetshitter coping about a superior people
@@secretname4190 “me, albanian boy-“
I think you'd enjoy the books (they touch on concepts of romanity throughout the medieval period in one of the largest rivals to the Emperors, the French)
-Difference and Identity in Francia and Medieval France edited by Meredith Cohen and Justine Firnhaber-baker
-History, Frankish Identity and the Framing of Western Ethnicity, 550-850 by Helmut Reimitz
-Fictions of Identity in Medieval France by Donald Maddox
-Le Baptême de Clovis by Bruno Dumézil
-The Familiar Enemy by Ardis Butterfield
-On Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages edited by Andrew Gillett
-Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World edited by Ralph W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer
-Shifting Ethnic Identities in Spain and Gaulle, 500-700 by Erica Buchberger
-Authorship, Worldview, and Identity in Medieval Europe edited by Christian Raffensperger
Added to my reading list
Interesting information, thank you so much Romaboo👍
One of if not the best video I have seen on history!
Good job!
It's better for your life security that this is april fool
Too late, I’m coming for him now
@@Matthaeus0 we're counting on you Aurelian.
@Anti Pisslamic Atheist "delendi sunt"
It's awfully RELATIVELY complicated. It WAS those things, and then it wasn't. Charlemagne and those who follow him would agree it certainly WAS. The more I think about it, though, the more it intrigues me.
Came for the memes, stayed for well-reasoned apologetics and a refreshingly non-condescending view of history. Excellent job on the video - I'm glad I stumbled upon the channel.
Dude, I felt so called out by the paradox-player-part. Well done. Take my upvote.
Reddit gay Voltaire
I will defend Voltaire insofar as the context of his writing allows. By the time of Voltaire, the HRE was fragmented and weak. The Emperor had lost much of his divine and secular authority within the empire. So I've always seen the quote as reflecting the contemporary state of the HRE, not the historical state.
Tell that all the Voltaireboos constantly misquoting him and quoting him out of context in order to reassure their modern, nationalistic biases.
This is crazy that this got recommended to me, I was having a shower thought about this. Started putting the pieces together and realized it is indeed a Holy Roman Empire
Based
FINALLY!!!!! Thank you! Great job!
Does anybody else found funny how he's talking about how many xp you need to level up to the empire status, while in the background is the *Duchy* of Bohemia?
Yes, the Duchy of Bohemia is part of the Roman Empire
@@deutschermichel5807 but still a duchy, too far from being an empire but he's talking about it anyway.
That people look at one Voltaire quote that directly spoke about "the current" HRR of his time and act like it would be a suitable quote for the over 1000 years....
In which they were an Empire (several Kingdoms ruled by an Emperor), Holy (at least for Christianity) and Roman (by literally owning and ruling Rome)
Its the easiest way of knowing if somebody reads books on history or memes.
it might also be important to mention that the hre throughout different times declared its own right to appoint bishops outside of direct papal control, the “sacrum” part might also be a part of that, its independent claim to appoint local spiritual heads.
Im learning, it is a really good video, thank you!
Loved the video. One of the most myth busting ever. Thanks.
Ein herzliches Danke für dieses Video
Voltaire was neither a historian, writer, or political thinker.
True
History is written by the victors is the only true thing he ever said
Another thing about the empire part is, just as with the sacrum and sanctum part, that we have two words in German that both translate to empire: Reich and Imperium. The thing is that a Reich can also be a Königreich (Kingdom) for example
This was very enlightening, thank you
Greatest thing i like about the HRE was that it was a loose monarchical confederacy where each internal state could basically mind its own business alone. Nowadays this is anathema for the mega "democractic", "republican" states of the world.
The amazing thing is that this entity lasted so long, and I think it must have to do with its name. Who doesn't fancy being part of something that is holy, roman and empire?
This video demands a million views. I'm very grateful!
Amazing video. Everybody who mentions the HRE should watch it.
Fantastic video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
I realllly think you underplay the byzantine arguments in the 'roman' section. Just kind of brushing past their existence when I think that is the single strongest counter to any claim of hre 'roman-ness'
So the Western Roman Empire had no claim to Roman-ness either then?
@@soupit32 i don't know how you came away with that based on what I said
I see many people fighting about what is ''roman'', ''byzantine'', byzantines being mainly Greeks etc. Guys if you had a time machine and went to ancient world lets say in 700 B.C or 100 B.C and said ''hi i am roman'' people would thought that you are literally from the city of rome in central Italy, but if then with the same machine went to 250 A.D or 700 A.D if you said that you are roman, people wouldnt think that you are from the city of Rome (if even you were) but you were a citiznen of the roman empire regardless if your nationality was south italian, Greek, Armenian etc. After almost 1000 years, being ''roman'' had become a supranational cultural identity, a title, something similar today of being European or American, with the difference of having even greater cultural and religious meaning, for example you were the reprensetitive of Gods kingom on earth, you were different of other barbarians pagans and infidels etc.
*Voltaire has left the chat*
Great video, great research on the Voltaire line!
Shit video hre wasnt roman or holy. It was fucking German
The Byzantine Empire was holy (Orthodox), was Roman and was an empire.
which is why you had two Empires (actually more but the others were less significant) with good and not so good arguments of being the successor. Its not a black and white thing which could fully be solved ;)
Voltaire is rolling in his grave right now.
Charlemagne didn't need a title with the "Roman" cultural baggage. The Carolingian Frankish Empire is a powerhouse in its own right.
The HRE under Otto Liudolfinger and his successors is a continuation of the Carolingian Empire, not the ancient Roman Empire, at least imho.
@@Arbelotexcept they 100% thought of themselves as both and had good reason for it. Stop projecting modern ideas of state and religion onto people from the past
Excellent video. This is well researched and very convincing.
Maybe this is an April Fools (although it's past 12:00 where I live so it doesn't count, as we practice it), but on the assumption that this is a good faith argument I think you're a bit off the mark here.
Holy: So, in effect, this could be summed up as being holy "because I say so". Sure, the HRE's emperors participated in the crusades, and did engage with the reformation (although how "good" their faith was is debatable). But many of Europe's major states did the former, and England, in the latter case, has the better claim to be "Holy/Sacred" since it's king did declare himself the official head of the Church & maintained that position much more strongly than any emperor. That said, if you take "Holy" as being consecrated by the Pope I think that's valid. You rejected this version, but it seems to me the strongest one in terms of legitimacy. The Pope is God's representitive, and the HRE (or rather, it's ruler) was given legitimacy as King of the Romans by the Pope, being a holy vassal by extension. This would mean that when relations were poor that "holiness" was much weaker, but for a Catholic empire then assent by the Pope is surely the only legitimate source of holiness.
Roman: A bit stronger than it's claim to holiness, but other than the enforcement of Roman Law in the late 15th century (more than 500 years after it's founding) it seems to lack many distinctly *Roman* political structures. Sure, some emperors were keen on using Roman titles, but Philip II was know as "Augustus" & he hardly has a claim on Romaness. There's the obvious lack of Latin & control over Italy that hurt a pretention at being Rome, but even if we take it as more a spiritual monikor, then it really is just play-acting. There was not fully developed national identity (though Maximilan I did make several allusions to a Germanic nation) there was national identiity. Bohemia, for example, may have been part of the HRE but it's people & rulers were Czechs. The common tounge was Czech, and they did not see themselves as "Roman". And whilst this may have also been true for parts of the real Roman empire, it was not true for the core parts of it. But Bohemia was as core to the HRE as Greece was the Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire gets a claim to Romaness in part because it's people thought that they were Roman. But the same cannot be said for the miriad constituant states of the HRE.
Empire: This is the only part that actually fits. I agree that Voltaire only added it to make the quip sound better. Even so, it was not a particuarly centralised one. Unlike various contemporary empires throughout it's lifetime, the ERE, the Angevin, the Ottoman, it was a looser collection of states whose rulers owed less direct fealty to their overlord. This does depend on who & when, of course, but although the HRE has a well-known & well documented political system it was still relatively weak beurocratically speaking. Some emperors centralised it, under others that centeralisation slipped. This doesn't discount it from being an empire, of course, but by Voltaires' comparison to contemperary states it was much less so.
In short, the HRE could be considered Holy, Roman & an Empire, but only if you are generous with the definition of the former two, which really boils down to your definition of the words, and the strength of the claim to all three varies wildly throughout its history. Lastly, any put-down of the HRE is a put-down of the Germans, which can only be a good thing in my view.
I mean, it *is* an April fools vid. It came out like early evening* yesterday (at least in Eastern Standard Time)
Very mature last statement there, mate.
@@caetsaragrippa5283 I'm sorry my joke at the end wasn't arbeit macht frei enough for you, mate.
@@gurigura4457 I'm sure you can do better.
the archvillain voltaire has died
3:32 Fun fact: in Spanish it's called "Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico", it's similar to the Latin and it adds the "Germanic" in the name, I don't know exactly why.
It's really sad that someone makes conclusions about a literal Empire from a cheap cliché by a cheap someone like Voltaire. But it's the absolute state of "knowledge" nowadays it seems...