Open Encyclopedia

Article Search:

Talk: List of German Kings and Emperors

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Ok -- are these German Kings or Holy Roman Emperors? They are not the same thing. Could someone whose sum knowledge of the period is not gained from reading the LDS family history site please help here? JHK

Is there any reason to list two Habsburgs as "Miscellaneous Houses" instead of "House of Habsburg"? JeLuF

Yep -- the person who constructed this page gets her history from dubious genealogical websites, and those of us who actually do history don't care as much about meaningless lists. Or at least that's my take on it. JHK

I think there should be two separte pages: 1 for Kings of Germany (only about 4) one for Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.

I just tried to fix it up a little, to make things more clear. I'd also note that the articles on the Holy Roman Emperors named "Henry" are totally screwed up. Because "Henry I the Fowler" was never crowned Emperor, somebody has taken it into their heads that all of the later Emperors should be moved down an ordinal. So, if I wanted to look for Barbarossa's son, Henry VI, I'd instead come up with the article on the Emperor almost always called "Henry VII", and so forth. This is a serious problem, and one beyond my competence. john 01:16 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

HI John -- my comments certainly weren't meant to insult -- only to point out that the French article was in relatively good shape by comparison. I'll certainly try to help out -- although not much until the quarter's over. The problems with France have seriously eaten into my weekend. CHeers! JHK

It's fine, I wasn't offended. My changes were made in the early days of my discover of wikipedia almost a month ago. I feel I've grown as a person since then. In any event, it was much worse before I got there, being full of confusing and wrong dates, and calling all the Emperors Henry by the wrong number. I think it's fairly adequate at the moment, in that it doesn't have any outright misinformation (although it did have some anachronisms that I neglected, but that you have just corrected), but it could definitely be improved to actually explain what the hell it's talking about. john 01:53 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Could somebody explain to me why there are two such lists, List of German Kings and Emperors and List of Holy Roman Emperors, and what future plans are WRT these two? Shall these eventually be merged? I wish they were, because the way it is now, things are confusing. Many people are already confused by the (rather irrelevant) distinction between German Kings and Emperors, when in fact one is a requisite for the other, and these two pages don't help. If you want my € 0.02, List of Holy Roman Emperors should go. I'll gladly help. -- Djmutex 11:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I concur. I came upon these lists in a really bad state when I first came on Wikipedia, and tried to improve them. (The dates and titles of each ruler are now accurate). But it remains confusing, especially with the two pages. So do what needs to be done. john 17:09 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Um, IIRC, some of this came from the first wars of nationhood at wikipedia, where someone sensible was working on one list, and our German T., HJ, was rying to come up with something that fit her understanding. But since there are in my estimation fewer than 10 people who belong on this list (because there is no Germany, so German doesn't work, I suggest we have a list of "Kings of the Germans and Holy Roman Emperors" and a short list for the modern guys called Kings and Emperors of Germany???JHK 17:17 31 May 2003 (UTC)

That sounds good, actually, except the latter page should just be "List of German Emperors", since there were no Kings of Germany, and the title was Deutscher Kaiser, not Kaiser von Deutschland. BTW, what exactly was the title of the non-crowned Holy Roman Emperors? I've heard King of Germany, King in Germany, German King, King of the Romans, simply "King", and now King of the Germans. john 17:29 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, my proposition would be to merge List of Holy Roman Emperors over and get rid of it. I find List of German Kings and Emperors good enough of a title for the moment, since any title would be incorrect for any given period of time. There was no Germany in the earlier centuries, nor was there a Holy Roman Empire; initially, it was the Eastern part of the former Frankish realm. Anyway, all Emperors were German Kings, but not the other way round, at least until 1508. Later things become even more complicated because there were several kings in Germany after the Prussians cheated to become kings themselves.
Anyway, I'd start merging the two lists then. We can always rename the page later, if somebody comes up with a better title. My first priority would be to get rid of one of the two lists. djmutex 17:39 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Hmm... so you're saying it's a list of "German Kings", and also "Emperors"? In any event, one should note that the emperors between 840 and 962 were not German Kings (save for Charles the Fat and Arnulf), but rather Kings of Italy... john 17:54 31 May 2003 (UTC)
I understood that at least the medieval emperors were "Kings of the Germans" not "German Kings, i.e. Kings of Germany" Analogous to the discussions re France. Aren't they called reges germanorum? or are they reges germaniae? I'm not trying to be difficult, but trying to make sure we maintain the idea that Germany as a country didn't exist until the 19th c. JHK
Actually, the title changes all the time, which is why I am saying that any heading for a "list of kings and emperors" page is wrong somehow.
I just looked up a few titles: The king is initially called rex Francorum. After he is crowned Emperor in Rome, he is called Imperator Augustus. The title changes in 982: the Emperor is Imperator Romanorum Augustus, and Henry III (r. 1039-1046) also calls himself rex Romanorum. At the end of the 11th century, "German" terminology emerges, and the realm is no longer the regnum Francorum, but also dubbed regnum Teutonicum. Things change again later when the various components of the title Holy Roman Empire are added (first "holy", later "of the German Nation", etc.).
In other words, it's a major mess. :-) djmutex 18:04 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Re JHK: I think nobody will be in doubt that Germany as a nation state did not exist until 1871. Otherwise we'd have to scrap the entire History of Germany page. :-) I believe we will run into no problems if we still dub the page something that includes "German". That would still be correct, at least from the High Middle Ages on, since the terminology begins to includes "German" in some shape or form. djmutex 18:07 31 May 2003 (UTC)


I would think Germany was a country (Land) and a nation (Nation) before the 19th century, although it was certainly not a state (Staat). The Holy Roman Empire was a weird creature, and in certain ways, it did provide a kind of German organization in which all (or most, at any rates) Germans could feel a certain unity. ("Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" was a term used by contemporaries) Certainly the Germans had a much greater sense of common identity than the Italians, who had no comparable unifying body. As far as the terminology goes, I'm not comlpetely sure. I've definitely seen "Rex Germaniae". [This site] says they were called "German King" or simply "King", and also King of the Romans. But then in giving the titular of an Emperor, it gives the title "King in Germany" (König in Germanien, rex in Germania). I would, however, agree with Djmutex that there's nothing particularly wrong with associating the Holy Roman Empire with Germanness. john 18:10 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Alright, I merged the two under List of German Kings and Emperors. Wasn't as much work as I feared it would be. However, what is still left to be done is to fix the gazillion links to List of Holy Roman Emperors; the problem is that each of the "King" and "Emperor" pages link to both list pages and must therefore now be fixed. I'd be willing to do that, but we must really agree whether "List of German Kings and Emperors" would be the final name for the list. :-) I think it's not too wrong (as I said, any title is wrong somehow); two alternatives I can think of is a) "List of German monarchs" (which matches List of French monarchs, or, more correctly, b) "List of monarchs in Germany". What do you think? — djmutex 19:23 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I think "German Kings and Emperors" is good. For one thing, I like the ambiguity over the adjective "German" and whether it refers to both Kings and Emperors, or just Kings, because "German Emperor" is a somewhat dubious title for Holy Roman Emperors. Also, I changed the list around a bit, so as to 1) include Charlemagne and Louis the Pious as Emperors; and 2) give the full list of emperors between Louis the Pious and Otto the Great, and distinguish them from the German Kings in the same time period. What is thought of this? john 19:31 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't mind to invite the Carolingians again, but I kicked those before 843 out to avoid an endless discussion like with Talk:List of French monarchs. Of course, if you want to have the same debate here, .... :-) djmutex 19:35 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a bit problematic, but I think it's important to list the actual Emperors all together somewhere. john 19:37 31 May 2003 (UTC)
AS a Carolingianist, and for consistency, I'd say no to the Carolingians -- their title was Roman Emperor, and looked back to that tradition. The Ottonians are more of a grey area ... JHK
I know their title was Roman Emperor, and that's what the page said. Nevertheless, I think all emperors crowned by the Pope should be listed on this page. john 20:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh wait -- damn -- see, this is the problem of "German" -- one that I really want to make sure we clarify, so that there isn't a discrepency between "French" and "German" -- Louis the German, for example, still can't be called a German King. aargh!JHK

All the emperors were "Roman" emperors. Hey, the Empire called itself Roman. :-) I think it's OK the way it is now, and we have the clarification that the early rulers were Franks. djmutex 20:25 31 May 2003 (UTC)


If Charles the Bald is a French King, Louis the German can equally be called a German king. I don't see why that's a problem. I think that, perhaps, more clarification is in order, particularly of the earlier emperors. But I really do think that all of the, er, "post Charlemagnian western emperors" ought to be listed in one place, and that there would be needless duplication if it were on a separate list from the "post Louis the German East Francian or German Kings" list. john 20:28 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure of that. I really think it's important that we do not have a double standard here. We can't say the Frankish kings aren't French and then say that they are German. The questions about nationhood are the same. Also, there is a very good historical reason for not tying the Carolingians Emperors to the HRE -- there is no continuity. The Ottonians came in for the same reason that the Capetians did in the west -- they were considered not to be a threat. The revival of an imperial title was a conscious attempt to connect to Carolingian tradition, but there's a real break between them. In the case of Louis the German vs. Charles the Bald, the only commonality is the treaty of Verdun. The Carolingians die out in 911, the leading-men who have already been solidifying their claims to territories under their administration (and in Louis the German's time, relatively few actually hold lands where they hold offices) become rulers who are answerable to no one, which pretty much stays constant throughout the Middle Ages! JHK

Addendum to above -- John this is why so many historians like to use the 987/911 break, rather than 843. If those are the dates that are used, there are clear dynastic breaks, there's no bloody Lotharingia to worry about, and we have the establishment of clearly different governments that really can be seen to be the formations of France and "Germany" in the sense of a Kingdom of Germans later unified by those Prussians. Also, it removes the problem of a roving Carolingian Emperorship, which makes no sense at all to people who see the HRE and then expect consistency. JHK 20:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. A page detailing the varying fortunes of the different carolingian kingdoms might be helpful. I'd note www.friesian.com/Francia.htm, which does a good job of laying out all the vicissitudes of "Francia" and its successor states, mostly using lists of rulers, genealogical tables, and maps, with some connecting text. Perhaps some sort of similar detailed accounting of how exactly the Carolingian realm broke up, and how the new Kingdom of France and "Empire" grew out of it would be a good idea, although not in this article. And Lotharingia/Italy/Burgundy is, indeed, quite a pain in the ass. The whole thing is a mess. Western Francia is actually the easiest part of the mess. After 843, with the exception of the brief rule of Charles the Fat, Western Francia was a separate kingdom. The rest of it is seriously messy. You have Lothar's realm getting partitioned and repartitioned. You have dubious Emperors in Italy (followed by even more dubious Kings of Italy up to 962). You have Lotharingia proper, you have the Kingdom of Arles, you have the succession to Louis the German in East Francia, which is itself divided up among his sons, and then reunited. It's all very messy. Being the Carolingian expert here, how do you think we should deal with it? john 07:05 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I hate to sound postmodern, but I think the problem lies purely in the fact that we're trying to impose an articifical structure on Frankish inheritance patterns. That said, people like lists. It helps put things into digestible form. Of course, the worst case scenario is that we get people like our recent friend, who can't see that lists are simplifications of a big picture.

I know this sounds a bit um, snotty, but oh those eons ago, when several of us started these lists (two of us specialists in Carolingian history, BTW -- friends from grad school, one who has gone on to become <a href="www.crankyprofessor.com">the Cranky Professor</a>, we kida, sorta, chose 987 (with the inclusion of the later Carolingians for numbering purposes) in France and 911 in "Germany" for a reason ... ;-) JHK

It does sound a bit snotty. ;-) I think that the problem is not so much "Germany", or East Francia, as it is the imperial title, and the Lotharingian realms. For East Francia you have

That's not particularly complicated, or particularly hard to understand. What is hard to understand is a) the progress of the imperial title, from Lothar to his son Louis II (ruler of Italy) to Charles the Bald (of West Francia), to Charles the Fat (of East Francia), to two Dukes of Spoleto, to Arnulf (of East Francia), to Louis the Blind (of Provence), and thence to Berengar (of Friuli), along with the concurrent changes over control of Italy itself (up to 962), of Lotharingia, and of the Burgundian Kingdoms. The whole of it is a mess. Perhaps the "Lotharingian Realms", including the imperial title before 962 (being, as it was, tied to rule over Italy), could have their own page, covering the early emperors, the Kings of Italy up to 962, the King of Burgundy up to 1032, and the Kings of Lotharingia, such as there were (just Lothar II, really, no?) The East Frankish/German/post-962 (Holy) Roman Empire rulers could be on the "German Kings and Emperors" page. john 18:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. Although I might add that a list of the three continuations after the 843 splitup already exists at List of Frankish Kings, where the Eastern and Western branch have clear links to List of German Kings and Emperors and List of French monarchs, respectively. Maybe a couple of items should rather be added to that list; it is complicated already and clearly outside of a "French" or "German" context. :-) djmutex 18:57 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Re myself, I forgot to add also that a page for Lotharingia already exists, although it's more or less a stub. djmutex 19:01 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, since the Frankish Emperors go away with the Carolingians, and are gone until kind of revived under the Ottonians, how about: 
WHat do you think?  JHK

Mostly sounds good, but... were Guy and Lambert of Spoleto Franks? Was Berengar of Friuli? All were emperors. And what is to be done with the later Kings of Italy and Burgundy? A "Lotharingia" page might be useful for this purpose, but who knows? The whole thing is a mess. Also, if we are to do this, the post-1871 emperors could not be on this page, which would have to be "List of German Emperors". There were no post-1871 "Kings of Germany". john 21:19 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be an acceptable inaccuracy to add those three Italians on the Frankish page (with a remark that they were not Frankish), for the sake of having some order at the expense of correct terminology. Thus I'd agree with Julie, if I understood her correctly, but to be sure, let me rephrase:
  1. Fill up List of Frankish Kings with the missing emperors after 843 and add a brief explanation that those Italians weren't Frankish.
  2. Leave List of German Kings and Emperors as it is, except for adding an explanation about why the Prussians became kings too.
  3. On renaming those list pages, my suggestion would be "List of Frankish kings and emperors" and "List of German kings and emperors" (that is, no change except no capitalization). If I understood Julie correctly, "king" and "emperor" should not be capitalized here.
Other than that, I think Burgundy and Italy are none of our business here and we're doing good. :-) djmutex 21:29 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I believe Julie's idea is have "List of Frankish Kings" include the emperors, "List of German kings and emperors" be only the modern German Emperors; and a new page on "List of German Kings and Holy Roman Emperors" to talk about the rulers from 911-1806. This seems workable. Perhaps an article on "Kings of Italy" could be created to deal with those guys. Certainly "Kings of Burgundy" would be a plausible article in its own right. john 22:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Adding, again, that "List of German kings and Emperors" would have to be changed to "List of German Emperors", in this case. john 22:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Oh, please, no. That would give us exactly the many lists again that I was trying to avoid when I merged the two Empereror/kings lists. I think there is no point in having a separate "emperors" list whatsoever. In my view, add those three italians to List of Frankish Kings to have the emperors until 900 something there, add a few explanations here and there, and be done. djmutex 23:20 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is number of lists, so much as duplicated lists. If this were to be done, the German Emperors from 1871-1918 would have their own page, not duplicated anywhere else. And since it was indisputably a different state than the old reich, I think that would make a lot of sense. john 23:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Monkey wrench time -- I am unclear on this myself, but are Guy and Lambert definately Italian -- or are they people who married into the Lotharingian branch of the family -- and are possibly Frankish, but not Carolingian? I'd leave them out for now, but it's good to check. ALso, didn't some Prussian call himself King of Germany after the unification but before the German EMpire? Again, that's modern stuff; I have to teach it, but I haven't committed it to memory very well. JHK

I have no idea what exactly Guido and Lambert's background was, but checking it out on the university of Erlangen's genealogy site, they seem to have descended at least partially from Frankish nobles. They weren't Carolingians, certainly. Berengar would appear to have been a grandson of Louis the Pious on his mother's side, but his father's family seems to have been in Friuli for some time. No Prussian monarch ever called himself King of Germany. Until 1871 he was simply King of Prussia. (although also "President of the North German Confederation"). After 1871 he was German Emperor and King of Prussia. john 04:21 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contribute

Found an omission? You can freely contribute to this Wikipedia article. Edit 'Talk: List of German Kings and Emperors' article.

Last Contributor: Koyaanis_Qatsi - Article Talk Page: Discussion - GNU FDL: Verbatim Source

About Open Encyclopedia

Open Encyclopedia is an free extensive encyclopedia service provided by the New Frontier Information Network, a newly launched private company which offers easy access to thousands of online articles, e-books and documentation covering a wide variety of broad topics.

This is a minimal rendered version of a open-encyclopedia.com Web page. Our Web site is best viewed using an up-to-date Web browser, such as Mozilla Firefox, Opera or Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Copyright © 2003-2004 Zeeshan Muhammad. All rights reserved. Legal notices. Part of the New Frontier Information Network.