calimero
Hello Guest! Please sign in or register!

Author Topic: H.E. = Moyen-Âge (résumé) / Middle Ages (summary) / Edad Media (resumen) /Geschi  (Read 3544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lugdu

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1199
  • -Received: 722
  • Posts: 1744
  • Country: fr
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCucJw7iT8
Re: H.E. = Gutenberg
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2017, 17:32 »
Un très intéressant documentaire animé sur l'invention de Gutenberg dans son époque : l'imprimerie mi-XV°.
ARTE-TV en allemand < https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/064434-000-A/gutenberg-genie-und-geschaeftsmann/ >
et en français < https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/064434-000-A/gutenberg-l-aventure-de-l-imprimerie/ >
Au programme : sa complexité technique, sa difficulté financière, les prouesses, la diffusion en Occident.… et des illustrations d'époque magnifiques.

Frank Zappa

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 801
  • -Received: 960
  • Posts: 1688
  • Country: 00
The great Interregnum
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2018, 23:17 »
Thanks a lot, Ludgu, for the historic review. I would like to add something that only very few people still know about today although it has been the most decisive event for the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages: The great Interregnum beginning in the year 1245 after the deposition of Frederick II, the last emperor of the Staufen dynasty lasted several decades.

The weakness of the central government during this time lead to "near-anachy in Germany where robber barons acted unopposed by the nominal system of justice. Germany was fractured into countless minor states fending for themselves a condition that would persist into the modern period and, termed Kleinstaaterei, present an obstacle to the modern project of national unification."(Quote wikipedia)

This has been the reason for the rise of the Hanse, the Swiss confederation and the other Leagues of Cities, since they had to defend themselves without a functioning central government. The interregnum has also been the main reason why, unlike France, Germany became a late nation state. Until 1250 the developement of the two succesors of the Franconian empires hasnt been that different. Look at the maps which you posted how the HRE splittered between 1200 and 1300: https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/fr_index.html

The painting shows the 16 years old last Staufer king Conradin playing chess before getting headed in Naples by Charles of Anjou in 1268 (unlike many people think the Franco-German conflict goes much further back than 1870):


« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 23:28 by Frank Zappa »
"Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex."

Lugdu

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1199
  • -Received: 722
  • Posts: 1744
  • Country: fr
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCucJw7iT8
Ah, oui, c'est très intéressant, car je ne comprenais pas pourquoi, ni comment :
"on était passé du grand territoire hérité du Traité de Verdun (843) à cette multitude de fiefs et royaumes" = base du Saint Empire Romain Germanique.

Frank Zappa

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 801
  • -Received: 960
  • Posts: 1688
  • Country: 00
Holy Roman Empire
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2018, 23:34 »
The Holy Roman Empire has really been a very strange construct. That a political entity which has always been lead by a German monarch and mainly populated by German speaking people has been first in line called "Roman" (the additive "of German nation" has only been added in the end of the 15th century) is quite confusing. The Holy Roman emperors saw themselves as the political successors of the ancient Roman empire and not of their Germanic ancestors.

I am especially interested in how Italians see it today since many Italian regions have been part of that construct for many centuries. I could imagine that it is rather been seen as foreign occupation although since the extinction of the Staufer dynasty (see the execution of the last Staufer Conradin above) the factual power of the German emperor in Italy has been rather small.

Interestingly the Italian conquests of the Holy Roman emperors have been seen rather negative by nationalist German historians of the 19th century as well. They argued that the empire wasted too much energy in the endless conflicts with the papacy and the Northern Italian cities, which together with the permanent conflict with France weakened it so much that it finally got dissolved under pressure of Napoleon in 1806. In this context Bismarck still claimed in a conflict with the Vatican in 1872 "We will not go to Canossa–neither in body nor in spirit" refering to the "Road to Canossa" of the German king Henry in the 11th century.

Actually I also have an additional question especially to @Conti : What is your assessment of the special relation between the popes and the Holy Roman emperor in the middle ages. Has it benefited the church? How would the catholic church have developped without the duty of the mighty Holy Roman emperor to protect it?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 23:38 by Frank Zappa »
"Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex."

Frank Zappa

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 801
  • -Received: 960
  • Posts: 1688
  • Country: 00
King Henry waiting barfoot for the pope in Canossa in 1077
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2018, 11:37 »


The poor guy had to wait three days and three nights before the entrance gate of the castle, while a blizzard raged.

« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 11:52 by Frank Zappa »
"Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex."

Conti

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 986
  • -Received: 1415
  • Posts: 2068
  • Country: it
Re: Holy Roman Empire
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2018, 12:01 »
The Holy Roman Empire has really been a very strange construct. That a political entity which has always been lead by a German monarch and mainly populated by German speaking people has been first in line called "Roman" (the additive "of German nation" has only been added in the end of the 15th century) is quite confusing. The Holy Roman emperors saw themselves as the political successors of the ancient Roman empire and not of their Germanic ancestors.

I am especially interested in how Italians see it today since many Italian regions have been part of that construct for many centuries. I could imagine that it is rather been seen as foreign occupation although since the extinction of the Staufer dynasty (see the execution of the last Staufer Conradin above) the factual power of the German emperor in Italy has been rather small.

Interestingly the Italian conquests of the Holy Roman emperors have been seen rather negative by nationalist German historians of the 19th century as well. They argued that the empire wasted too much energy in the endless conflicts with the papacy and the Northern Italian cities, which together with the permanent conflict with France weakened it so much that it finally got dissolved under pressure of Napoleon in 1806. In this context Bismarck still claimed in a conflict with the Vatican in 1872 "We will not go to Canossa–neither in body nor in spirit" refering to the "Road to Canossa" of the German king Henry in the 11th century.

Actually I also have an additional question especially to @Conti : What is your assessment of the special relation between the popes and the Holy Roman emperor in the middle ages. Has it benefited the church? How would the catholic church have developped without the duty of the mighty Holy Roman emperor to protect it?

A distinctive feature of medieval Italy was the conflict between two opposing parties, the Guelphs and the Ghibellins, named after the Bavarian House of Welf and the Swabian castle of Wibellingen or Waiblingen, respectively.

Quote
The Guelphs and Ghibellines (/ɡwɛlfs/; /ˈɡɪbɪlaɪnz/, also US: /ˈɡɪbəliːnz/, /ˈɡɪbələnz/; Italian: guelfi e ghibellini [ˈɡwɛlfi e ɡɡibelˈliːni]) were factions supporting the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, respectively, in the Italian city-states of central and northern Italy. During the 12th and 13th centuries, rivalry between these two parties formed a particularly important aspect of the internal politics of medieval Italy. The struggle for power between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire had arisen with the Investiture Controversy, which began in 1075 and ended with the Concordat of Worms in 1122. The division between the Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy, however, persisted until the 15th century.

The Italians of North and Central Italy were materially divided between two opposing powers and ideologically divided between two opposing principles.

I'm not sure all of them regarded the Empire as a foreign domination, because it could be regarded as the contemporary embodiment of a political ideal that emerged in Roman times and was essentially supranational. You should also consider that local identities were probably stronger than the perception of Italy as a nation and medieval Italians were loyal to their city states, not to a nation state that didn't exist. Also, the memory of the ancient Roman Empire could not result in an Italian national identity, because ancient Rome was a city state that conquered an ethnically diverse Italy in the antiquity, North Italy wasn't even regarded as Italian initially and was called Cisalpine Gaul, Central Italy was half Etruscan, the rest spoke so called Italic Indo-European languages, there were Greek colonies in the South, Phoenician colonies in West Sicily etc. and the ancient Roman Empire was much bigger than Italy. The Romans created the Roman Empire, they didn't create Italy. All in all, in medieval times the Empire was a political ideal, a source of political legitimacy and as an ideal it was supranational. It wasn't a big deal that the emperor was German. Quite a few emperors of the antiquity had been non Italians from Spain, from Dalmatia, from Syria etc.

On the other hand, the popes are not just successors of Peter. The papacy also descends from the state priesthood of ancient Rome where Christianity replaced paganism. That's why a pope could crown Charlemagne as the Roman Emperor regardless of what the Eastern Emperor in Constantinoples said. Like the empire, the papacy is a supranational institution in principle, even if the popes were chosen by Roman noble families.

The conflict between emperors and popes caused quarrels between medieval Italian cities and between parties within each city. Loyalties divided between two opposing supranational ideals hindered the emergence of the Italian national identity. Imagine a country that identifies in the United Nations.

Coming to the relationship between the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, had the Empire prevailed we would have had caesaropapism like in Byzantium and Moscow, i.e. the emperor would have dominated not just in temporal, but also in spiritual matters. If the Empire had been too weak Western Europe would have become a theocracy and priests would have ruled in temporal matters. Neither the Empire nor the Papacy prevailed and Western Europe was able to keep temporal and spiritual matters distinct if not separate.

Thinking twice, without the emperors Italy might have been conquered by Arabic or Turkish Muslim powers sooner or later. The Roman church would have ended up like the Coptic church in Egypt. Islam doesn't distinguish between the temporal and the spiritual power, by the way.

It could be interesting to read about Dante's political ideas to delve deeper into the matter. Dante's opus De Monarchia
Quote
is made up of three books, but the most significant is the third, in which Dante most explicitly confronts the subject of relations between the Pope and the Emperor. Dante firstly condemns the theocratic conception of the power elaborated by the Roman Church with the theory of the sun and the moon and solemnly confirmed by the papal bull Unam sanctam of 1302. The theocratic conception assigned all power to the Pope, making his authority superior to that of the Emperor: this meant that the Pope could also legitimately intervene in the matters usually in the sphere of secular authority.

Against this theocratic conception, Dante expressed his need for another strong Holy Roman Emperor and proposed the idea that man essentially pursues two ends: the happiness of earthly life and that of eternal life. Dante argues that to the Pope is assigned the management of men's eternal life (though he still recognizes this as the higher of the two), but to the Emperor is assigned the task of leading men towards earthly happiness. From this he derives the autonomy of the temporal sphere, under the Emperor, from the spiritual sphere, under the Pope - the pontiff's authority should not influence that of the Emperor in their competing tasks.

Dante wanted to demonstrate that the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope were both human and that both derived their power and authority directly from God. To understand this it is necessary to think that man is the only thing to occupy an intermediate position between corruptibility and incorruptibility. If it is considered that man is only made up of two parts, that is to say the soul and the body, he is corruptible - only in terms of the soul is he incorruptible. Man, then, has the function of uniting corruptibility with incorruptibility. The Pope and Emperor were both human, and no peer had power over another peer. Only a higher power could judge the two "equal swords," as each was given power by God to rule over their respective domains.

Frank Zappa

  • Super-Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 801
  • -Received: 960
  • Posts: 1688
  • Country: 00
Thanks a lot for that very informative post, conti.

I would just like to add something about how it came to the strange name of that empire. However I only found it in German:

Quote
Durch den Namen wurde der Anspruch auf die Nachfolge des antiken Römischen Reiches und damit gleichsam auf eine Universalherrschaft erhoben. Gleichzeitig fürchtete man das Eintreffen der Prophezeiungen des Propheten Daniel, der vorhergesagt hatte, dass es vier Weltreiche geben und danach der Antichrist auf die Erde kommen werde (Vier-Reiche-Lehre) – die Apokalypse sollte beginnen. Da in der Vier-Reiche-Lehre das (antike) Römische Imperium als viertes Reich gezählt wurde, durfte es nicht untergehen. Die Erhöhung durch den Zusatz „Heilig“ betonte das Gottesgnadentum des Kaisertums und legitimierte die Herrschaft durch göttliches Recht.

Mit der Krönung des Frankenkönigs Karl des Großen zum Kaiser durch Papst Leo III. im Jahr 800 stellte dieser sein Reich in die Nachfolge des antiken römischen Imperiums, die so genannte Translatio Imperii. Geschichtlich und dem eigenen Selbstverständnis nach gab es allerdings schon ein Reich, das aus dem alten römischen Reich entstanden war, nämlich das christlich-orthodoxe byzantinische Reich; nach Ansicht der Byzantiner war das neue westliche „Römische Reich“ ein selbsternanntes und illegitimes.
"Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex."