Could Charlemagne have known that moving the Roman capital to a geographically stupid location swarmed on all sides by the Franks, Germans, and Slavs was a stupid idea that would result in the collapse of the East, and the Holy becoming a weird autocratic state of German-Slavic mutts perpetually in decline?
>>18528573I'm afraid you will have to lay out what exactly you mean by each of those points anon, because most of them seem to make little sense and betray some major confusion on your part.
>>18528573He didn't, and he certainly caused no such thing. During his lifetime the imperial title was associated primarily with Italy, and after his death and the collapse of his empire the title of Roman emperor would be used by the independent rulers of Italy. Even after Otto the great the title was associated primarily with Italy. After all despite its weakness politically, it had about half the empire's population and was without doubt the richer half. It wouldn't be until the latter middle ages when the imperial title became primarily associated with Germany
Charlemagne made Aachen his capital years before he was crowned Roman Emperor. That title was mainly to signify his right to rule Italy, and outside of Italy the title he ruled by was Emperor of the Franks. That did not change even after he was crowned Roman Emperor.
>Serbia got landlockedOuch
Charlemagne didn't have a capital you retard
>>18528573Is this a HRE thread or a Carolingian Empire thread?>perpetually in decline?By what measure?
>>18530642>By what measureThe constantly devolving central power from the Carolingians, then Ottonians and Salians to the point where royal power in Germany became defunct in the mid 13th century to the point where German kings became poorer and weaker than their Castilian, French and even English counterparts
>>18528575This x1
>>18531224Who the hell cares? That is literally one person at a time
>>18528573Stupid fucker. I hope the numerous replies calling you a stupid fucker make you pick up a book and realise the error of your ways, you kill yourself or better yet both.
>>18531313>Systematic decline over centuries doesn't matter... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
>>18531319>systematic decline... of one person's relative status (to the benefit of everybody else)
>>18531323>>systematic decline... of one person's relative statusYou mean the systematic decline of the state. This is like saying the fall of the Roman Empire was actually just the decline of one person's status and nothing else.>(to the benefit of everybody else)The only people it benefited were the Princes. The frequent civil wars and no power being able to stop the intermittent wars between the Princes didn't help the majority of people.
>>18530642Imagine being alive in the 1400s and traveling all the way to York to see a clock
>>18530231He did, but only in the latter part of his reign. Aachen was where he eventually settled his imperial bureaucracy. You are mostly right though, as for most of his reign as king he simply held court wherever he was, rather than having a permanent capital.
>>18531350>You mean the systematic decline of the state... the king was not the state. You seem to have confused medieval politics for early modern politics.
>>18531350Decentralisation helped the development of the country by giving the princes greater means to invest in their holdings
>>18531877>... the king was not the stateRoyal authority was the state. It is the same exact thing as central authority. The kingdom of Germany without the former centralisation it enjoyed became an effectively defunct institution split into a dozen new states without anything in common other than lip service and belonging to the same political community. Early modern German states would at least pay a tribute of kind but not in the Middle Ages.>>18532121That doesn't make any sense. They already did so under the Ottonians and Salians, when central power was still powerful. The only thing that changed was that they faced less controls in what they could do outside of their domains. The places which developed the most where in Northern Italy and the Low counties which had nothing to do with Princes.
>>18531224>Ottonians and Salians>Decentralized Hitler if you can hear me please strike me down with a thunderbolt
>>18531874Didn't the construction of the Royal Palatinate of Aachen begin several decades before Karl became emperor? And it's not like other countries didn't have itinerant courts as well.>>18532372>The kingdom of Germany without the former centralisation it enjoyed became an effectively defunct institution split into a dozen new states without anything in common other than lip service and belonging to the same political community.You are overstating the decentralisation of the 13th/14th centuries that occured in the HRE and the supposed sense of not belonging to an overarching polity/realm. While the Confoederatio Cum Principibus Ecclesiasticis, the Statutum In favorem Principum and the Golden Bull of 1356 did grant significant privleges towards the secular and eccelsiastical princes of the HRE (the Emperor included) it did so within the frame of the HRE.Their privileges were derived from being members of the HRE and not being independent of it.>They already did so under the Ottonians and SaliansThey couldn't. Building castles, minting coinage, extracting tolls and much more were regal rights which could only be done by the german king/emperor. And while kings/emperors did grant jura regalia towards princes that they liked, they were not inheritable and not wholesale. Only in the 13th century were the jura regalia of the princes codified and institutionalised.>Northern Italy and the Low countiesThose territories were duchies of the HRE and ruled by princes.
>>18532661Nigga reread the post. The Ottonians and Salians were centralised rulers.>>18532668>While the Confoederatio Cum Principibus Ecclesiasticis, the Statutum In favorem Principum and the Golden Bull of 1356 did grant significant privleges towards the secular and eccelsiastical princes of the HRE (the Emperor included) it did so within the frame of the HRE.Their privileges were derived from being members of the HRE and not being independent of it.I'm more referring to the Great Interregnum, where royal power was all but destroyed by civil wars and the lack of any real ruler for over 20 years harmed the German kingdom. Later concessions only happened because the kingdom was weakened so much and what was lost during that period was never recovered. The Golden Bull of 1356 was a further concession by an already weak monarch compared to earlier rulers and would be frankly unthinkable before the Interregnum. They existed within the German kingdom, but that doesn't make it any less of a crippled kingdom and the Princes anything but defacto overlords without much opposition. >They couldn't. Building castles, minting coinage, extracting tolls and much more were regal rights which could only be done by the german king/emperor.Half of these do not actually benefit regions, but rather encouraged the feudal disintegration of Germany. English lords couldn't do any of those either, yet England still continued to develop throughout the entire middle ages. The Princes under the Hohenstaufens were compelled to, and often did put their revenues into developing infrastructure and supporting towns even without their lands being inheritable. >Those territories were duchies of the HRE and ruled by princes.On paper sure, but in reality they were independent communes that were in practice self ruled and existed outside of the feudal system. In Northern Italy this was even more the case as they were recognised as independent political entities part of the kingdom of Italy.
>>18532681The Interregnum was adverse for the HRE but nothing unique in the context of european history.>They existed within the German kingdom, but that doesn't make it any less of a crippled kingdomWhat are your metrics for this "crippled" status?>and the Princes anything but defacto overlords without much opposition.The emperors after the Interregnum did check various princes many times when they overstepped their bounds.>The Princes under the Hohenstaufens were compelled to, and often did put their revenues into developing infrastructure and supporting towns even without their lands being inheritable.I couldn't find any fitting examples for that. Do you have any? The only example that comes to my mind is the rule of Engelbert I. of Cologne but he was also a very close friend of Friedrich II. and played a key role in the enactment of the Confoederatio Cum Principibus Ecclesiasticis.>In paper sure, but in reality they were independent communes that were in practice self ruled and existed outside of the feudal system.The economic rise of the Low Countries began in the 14th century when they were still firmly ruled by the princes. And the self-rulership of the cities was a) also derived from the princes (in the case of Ghent the Counts of Flanders which greatly favored said city) and b) was also deeply feudal in its characteristics. Similarly the economic rise of Milan coincides with the rulership of the Duchy of Milan, which was an imperial fief under the Visconti family.
