The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman....Discuss.?

Answer 1

Interesting question. No, he wasn't Roman, in fact, off the top of my head I can't think of an italian HRE. Most were from northern or central Europe.

But holy? Well, i think there's a good case to be argued for them being holy. They were granted the title Fide Defensor, or defender of the faith, and were envisioned as the temporal power to complement the spiritual authority of the papacy. They were the sword arm of the catholic church - for which, see the protestant reformation and Charles V's war against the schmalkaldic league.

On the other hand, the degree of 'holiness' or devotion does vary from emperor to emperor, and across the period (considering the first HRE was charlemagne in 800, and the title existed until the 19th century).

An interesting time to look at would be both Henry IV and the investiture dispute (the walk to canosas) in the 11th century, and the actions of the HREs during the avignon papcy.

You could really argue this either way; the office of HRE strayed a long way from the ideal of the temporal complement to the pope, and so they were neither Roman in birth, nor in patronage for a lot of the time, and their holiness was a more general devotion to Christianity than necessarily following the guidance of the pope. However, they still represented a bastion of catholicism up to and including the counter reformation.

Answer 2

Both words, "holy" and "Roman", were used as labels by the Holy Roman Empire, to mark a tradition the Empire wanted to adopt. The idea of an empire itself was inherited from the classic Roman empire; Rome was the one and ideal example of an empire where one emperor rules several nations.
The Holy Roman emperors were crowned and legitimated by the pope, usually in Rome. Thus, a concept of divine right was applied for the German emperor in order to justify his overlord status to the other local and regional lords and kings.
Both things caused frictions in the long history of the Holy Roman Empire. The popes made use of their power to install emperors, and pursued the concept of clerical dominance over secular lords. And the necessity for the German rulers to travel to Rome for getting the imperial crown, and to keep control over most of Italy, was a constant challenge. Most emperors chose one focus of their interest, either Germany or Italy, and neglected the other.

Answer 3

The central notion of this lays in LEGITIMACY.
The Roman Empire was a very stable and long-lived entity.
Thus, there really was something to be gained from the associacion, especially if you were a ruler of a new domain.
The Papacy did this using the Donation of Constantine (a document that suggested the Emperor Constantine endowed the Pope with his powers - now we know the document was fraudulent). Charlemagne (and his descendants) used the identity of Emperor/Empire to superceed these earthly powers of the Pope. As a king, he was Pope's subject - as an Emperor he was equal in all but spiritual matters. All of this was just a medieval-style political pissing contest... lol

Answer 4

That is a debatable issue? Whether or not they were Roman's ?
Whether it was a Holy Roman Empire? What is the point?
Everyone in Rome were Romans they had convert to being a Roman or else. Like forced citizenship. Most of the countries were conquered by Rome and that is why they say " When in Rome do as the Romans". They all took that seriously or you would be slaughtered. As far as the Vatican the Holy Mother Church is concerned the place was Holy. Well I disagree with that as well, no they are not holy, Jesus never walked there, and even if he had he would have soiled his sandals walking through all of that bloodshed of the innocent.

Answer 5

Road Island is neither a road nor and island ....Discuss

Answer 6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire