Talk:Holy Roman Empire

Correction of Capital of the Holy Roman Empire (1220–1254)

Hello,

I noticed an inaccuracy in the article regarding the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during the reign of Emperor Frederick II (1220–1254). The article currently states that Foggia served as the capital of the Empire during this period, but this is not historically accurate.

Correct Information:

During Frederick II's reign, Palermo, located in Sicily, was the primary administrative, cultural, and symbolic center of his rule. While Foggia held significance as a royal residence and administrative hub during certain periods, particularly for logistical purposes during campaigns in mainland Italy, it was never the capital of the Holy Roman Empire.

Key Historical Context:

Palermo’s Significance:

• Palermo held the title Prima Sedes, Corona Regis et Regni Caput of the Kingdom of Sicily. This translates to "First Seat, Crown of the King, and Head of the Kingdom," affirming its official status as the seat of power, site of royal coronations, and capital.
• It was the cultural and intellectual hub of Frederick's empire, hosting his court.
• As the core of Frederick’s Sicilian domain, Palermo was essential to his rule and represented the legal and symbolic heart of his governance.

Foggia’s Role:

• Foggia served primarily as a royal residence and imperial seat, a practical base for Frederick to administer his empire during his conflicts in Italy. Its location made it a strategic choice for coordinating military and political efforts across the empire.
• The Latin inscription on the Palace in Foggia—"Hoc fieri iussit Federicus Cesar ut urbs sit Fogia regalis sede inclita imperialis"—refers to it as a "royal city and illustrious imperial seat." This highlights Foggia's importance but does not designate it as the capital.
• While significant, Foggia’s role was temporary and functional, lacking the permanence, symbolism, and cultural weight of Palermo.

Sources and Revisions:

The claim of Foggia as the capital lacks credible historical support. Similar claims in the Italian Wikipedia article on the Kingdom of Sicily were removed due to insufficient and unreliable sources. Describing Foggia as a temporary imperial seat or administrative hub is more accurate and consistent with the historical evidence.

Suggested Revision:

To avoid misinterpretation, I suggest revising the article to clarify that Foggia, while an important imperial residence and administrative hub, was not a capital, either de jure or de facto, of the Holy Roman Empire. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, It appears that Foggia has indeed been removed from the list of capitals, however, I noticed that Palermo has also been removed, which was not my request. Palermo was indeed the capital of the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick II’s reign, this is supported by valid historical sources. I kindly ask for Palermo to be reinstated in the Capital list from 1194 to 1254 with the past listed sources. Thank you once again. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstolfoPannaci: I do not agree that Palermo, which lay outside the empire, belongs as a capital. It may have been the seat of the emperor for a time, but that is because the emperor was also king of Sicily. Indeed, Fogia regalis sede inclita imperialis is much closer to affirming Foggia as an imperial capital than Palermo. But neither was any more than Madrid when Charles V was there. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. While Foggia may have been a significant royal seat (Regalis sede) during certain moments, it cannot be considered a capital of the Holy Roman Empire. A royal seat and a capital are not the same; Foggia was one of several administrative seats Frederick II used, but Palermo was the center of his authority for much of his reign.

As both Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, Frederick’s governance naturally centered in Palermo, where even his imperial court resided. Palermo was not only the capital of the Kingdom of Sicily but also where Frederick conducted significant imperial business. This makes it historically accurate to consider Palermo as a de facto capital during Frederick II’s reign, especially given his unique role as a ruler of two realms. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The comparison with Charles V isn’t useful. The bureaucratic functions of the empire were much more developed and German centered by the early 16th century. Not so in the Tim elf Frederick II. As Davi Abulafia notes in his biography of Frederick II, capitals as a concept are, per se, not a useful concept when considered a peripatetic monarch as Frederick II—similar to Henry II of England. The ‘capital’ was effectively where Frederick was. That said, Palermo had immense status as a city but Abulafia documents conclusively how Frederick rarely resided in Palermo after his return in 1220. The idea of Palermo as the center of Frederick’s government is counter factual, belonging more the conception of his grandfather Roger II if Sicily, who mostly resided in the city. To Foggia is attached more significance, by Frederick’s own decree as has been noted here, as his base of operations in the Mezzogiorno—far and away his preferred ‘seat’ and on of this “places of solace” as Georgina Masson’s biography details. Stupor26 (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Palermo was not just the capital of the Kingdom of Sicily, it was the center of Frederick II’s administration, culture, and imperial ideology during a significant period of his reign, It was the site of the famous Sicilian School of poetry and even after 1220, when Frederick spent more time in southern Italy, Palermo remained a symbolic and administrative capital, where important imperial decrees and cultural advancements originated.

Foggia was indeed a key administrative and logistical hub for Frederick’s campaigns in southern Italy. However, describing it as a "capital" conflates practical necessity with symbolic and administrative preeminence, the title “Regalis sede inclita imperialis,” does not imply that Foggia was an imperial capital. Rather, it acknowledges its importance as one of Frederick’s many royal residences, moreover, Foggia lacked the cultural, symbolic, and enduring administrative role that Palermo maintained throughout Frederick’s reign. Comparing Foggia to Palermo in terms of significance is like comparing a field office to a national headquarters.

While it is true that Frederick, like many medieval rulers, was peripatetic, the idea that "a capital was wherever Frederick was" oversimplifies his governance, Frederick II’s reign was unique because he fused his roles as Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, and Palermo was central to this dual identity. While Frederick’s presence fluctuated, this did not diminish Palermo’s central role. The administrative structures and cultural advancements tied to his reign were rooted in the city, reflecting its continued importance as a de facto capital.

Modern historians recognize Palermo’s unique status during Frederick II’s reign. For example David Abulafia (Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor) and John Julius Norwich (The Kingdom in the Sun) consistently emphasize Palermo's central role in Frederick’s empire, particularly as the symbolic heart of his rule and while Foggia played a significant role in certain periods, its importance was functional rather than symbolic or administrative. Thus, Palermo deserves precedence as a recognized capital during Frederick's reign.

Palermo has long been listed as a capital of the Holy Roman Empire for the period of 1194–1254 in this page and many others. To remove it now without sufficient justification undermines established historical consensus and risks misrepresenting Frederick’s governance. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Palermo has been removed from the infobox without consent. The status of capital compared to other cities of the Kingdom seems obvious to me because only in Palermo are the sovereigns of the Kingdom of Sicily crowned (this is the foundation of the monarchy and the Kingdom) and the sources cited have no doubts about this. I would like to point out that I have read the attached Italian sources and they are written by German scholars who believe that the Kingdom of Sicily was part of the Empire defining this union "personal union". Upon the death of Henry VI, an imperial vicar was sent from Germany to Palermo to govern alongside the emperor Constance; this event undoubtedly demonstrates that the Kingdom of Sicily was part of the Empire but above all that in the Palermo period it was its capital (the emperors themselves are buried in Palermo and not in Germany).--Conannn (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I was advised to resume the discussion. The removal of Palermo as a capital remains unresolved, despite various historical sources supporting its status during Frederick II’s reign. Given that no new counterarguments have been presented for months, I, once again, propose reinstating Palermo as it was previously listed. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The claim that “there is no consensus” for Palermo being listed as capital is inaccurate. This Talk page shows that Palermo’s inclusion was supported by multiple users and justified with sourced historical reasoning. The removal was initially done without consensus, and no further objections have been made since December 2024. If someone disagree with Palermo being included, you are welcome to re-engage this discussion, but please do not continue reverting without participating in this Talk thread. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in none of the sources you give there is an indication that historians consider Palermo to be a capital of the HRE. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, while no source may explicitly declare “Palermo was a capital of the Holy Roman Empire” in a formal, modern sense (as many imperial capitals of the time lacked official designation), it is historically accurate to state that under Frederick II, imperial administration was centered in Palermo. The city functioned as the seat of government during his reign. Historical records clearly show that Frederick II’s court and core imperial administration operated from Palermo, making it the functional center of imperial governance during that period. While the specific term "capital" may not appear in sources, the practical role and symbolic prominence of Palermo during Frederick's rule are well-documented, in fact, this very article acknowledges it in the Administrative centres section. If we followed a strictly formalist approach, then even cities like Prague, Wetzlar, Regensburg, Vienna, Frankfurt, Innsbruck or even Aachen, which were never legally declared as permanent capitals, would not qualify either. But in practice, these cities are recognized as imperial capitals due to their administrative and symbolic roles at specific times, much like Palermo under Frederick II. Therefore, labeling Palermo as a capital during the Hohenstaufen era is consistent with both historical function and how other imperial capitals are treated on this page. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

this very article acknowledges it in the Administrative centres section Which is enough. It does not belong in the infobox. Indeed, it is misleading. Labelling a city outside of the empire as an imperial capital will actively mislead almost every reader of this page. And even your claims about Palermo's centrality have been disputed by Stupor26: The idea of Palermo as the center of Frederick’s government is counter factual. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I actually think the best choice for the infobox would be to say "Capital: none, see #Administrative centres". Then we don't have to argue whether the inclusion of Palermo means we have to also include Magdeburg and Munich (in my view the argument for these is stronger, but the list is already a bit too long to put in a box). If we can't agree on that, we should trim the list down to the unquestionable ones, not include all cities that ever served as capitals in any way. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that several cities currently in the infobox (e.g., Aachen, Regensburg, Frankfurt) share the same “no formal capital” status as Palermo, consistency would require either keeping Palermo or removing all such entries and directing readers instead to the Administrative centres section. I am open to either approach, but if Palermo’s functional role is excluded on technical grounds, then logically the others should be excluded as well. It is also worth noting that Palermo was originally removed without prior consensus or discussion, and some claims about its lack of centrality during the Hohenstaufen era are, at best, exaggerated. Frederick II spent the formative and most politically active phases of his reign in Palermo, maintained his imperial court there, issued imperial edicts from the city, and based much of his administrative apparatus in it. The Administrative centres section of this article already reflects this historical reality. As for the claim that Palermo lay “outside of the empire,” this is not accurate. Beginning with Henry VI, Sicily was held in personal union with the Holy Roman Empire, meaning it was ruled by the same monarch, under the same imperial authority, and integrated into Frederick’s overall imperial administration. As Conannn previously observed: “Upon the death of Henry VI, an imperial vicar was sent from Germany to Palermo to govern alongside the emperor Constance; this event undoubtedly demonstrates that the Kingdom of Sicily was part of the Empire but above all that in the Palermo period it was its capital (the emperors themselves are buried in Palermo and not in Germany).” AstolfoPannaci (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Regensburg and Frankfurt had administrative functions for hundreds of years (and so did Vienna and Wetzlar), so they are not "the same" as Palermo, which is perhaps comparable to Magdeburg here. The HRE encyclopaedia by Pavlac and Lott lists as "key places" Aachen, Augsburg, Basel, Berlin, Cologne, Frankfurt, Hanover, Innsbruck, Magdeburg, Mainz, Munich, Nuremberg, Salzburg, Silesia, Strasbourg, Trier, Vienna, and Würzburg. The main mention of Palermo in that book says it was not more important than Foggia: "He moved his capital from Palermo in Sicily to Foggia in northern Puglia to give him better access to the entire Italian Peninsula." —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the capitals from the infobox. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This seems very sensible. The situation is, as we have seen, complex and infoboxen are not the place for complexity. Furius (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m satisfied with the edit, and i can consider the matter resolved. Thanks for participating in the discussion. AstolfoPannaci (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

All that fighting for this? Absurd. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Problem with the lead sentence and name-section

While the phrase "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" did come into use around 1512, it's (unintentionally, I'm sure) misleading to suggest that the Empire was "also known as" this in any systematic or official sense after that point. The current phrasing suggests a straightforward shift in naming, implying that the Empire was widely referred to by this longer name after 1512. This oversimplifies a complex and fluid naming practice and risks misleading readers into thinking the name change was like a formal rebranding—which it wasn’t. Publications by Karl and Joachim Ehlers have shown that the use of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" was basically restricted to a period of less than a century after 1512 and that it wasn't until the 19th century (when the Holy Roman Empire had already been dissolved) that this particular formula was effectively reintroduced; and even then, it typically refers specifically to the Early Modern Period of the Holy Roman Empire.

The name-section too, is confusing and contains some errors. For example, Zeumer has conclusively shown that the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" fell out of official use by the late 16th century, not the 18th and many, if not all major scholars on this topic (including Ehlers), have stated that the addition of "of the German nation" never was a part of the Empire’s official title. Vlaemink (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "sometimes known". Srnec (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

wanted to change odd verbiage but Protected article.

Change

"On 6 August 1806, Emperor Francis II abdicated and formally dissolved the empire following the creation by French emperor Napoleon of the Confederation of the Rhine from German client states loyal to France."

to

"On 6 August 1806, Emperor Francis II abdicated and formally dissolved the empire following the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine from German client states loyal to France by French emperor Napoleon." Hypa1231204 (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be better to shift to a subordinate clause, I think: "after the French emperor created..." Furius (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Map inaccuracies

The Infobox map needs to be changed

The current map in the infobox showing the map of the HRE in '1190', by one DannamEmpire has multiple issues. 1. The map is inconsistent with itself. in the infobox it refers to 1190, while the map page shows 1200-1250. 2. It is using a historical map as a basis that either does not show the borders of the Holy Roman Empire itself, or the map is highly inaccurate(most damningly the inclusion of Prussia) personally I believe it was drawn to exxaggarte the extent of HRE power during the age of rising nationalism, signified by the map discussing the "German Empire"(one 'Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer' Droysens/Andree) 3. These inaccuracies and usage of willfully inaccurate, misinformed, or biased sources has caused this a-historical permeation of Holy Roman Empire borders to spread not only to other language wikipedia pages, but to other media which use either the wiki map itself, or its source. We need to find a better map for this period, or replace the 'largest extent' idea from the infobox. While I'm biased I believe the Czech Wikipedia page for the HRE, one made by Alphathon, a longtime registered wikipedia user to be suitable, as it portrays the borders more accurately, and uses a less biased map source as a base. If you know of a more accurate map, or a more suitable for its place please share and discuss. File:Holy_Roman_Empire_1190.svg DrettTheBaron (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The current map is derived from a published source: File:Droysens-26.jpg. Proposals to change it should present sources. Furius (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The map on the Czech Wikipedia is based on a publication from 1923; the map on the English Wikipedia is based on one from 1886. Neither of our two maps seem to track the borders in its source very faithfully; just look at what they do to Italy. Renerpho (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Renerpho I agree. Both have issues. I just used a map with an already existing record of usage on wikipedia. It's why I asked for other people's proposals as I am aware of the issues with my proposed map. DrettTheBaron (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining that. I think switching to File:Holy Roman Empire 1190.svg for the infobox would be wise, pending a map that presents Italy better. I would be very sad to lose File:Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg altogether, since the presentation of the internal boundaries is invaluable. The ideal outcome would be a modified version of the map with the red border shifted, so that it doesn't claim that Silesia and the territories of the Teutonic Knights were within the empire. @Alphathon: created that map and so I think it would be good to give them an opportunity to contribute to this conversation. Furius (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are two maps being discussed here with similar names:

• Holy Roman Empire in 1190.svg by @DannamEmpire. This is the current map in the infobox.
• Holy Roman Empire 1190.svg by me (Alphathon). This is the one used on the Czech Wikipedia and the alternative proposed by DrettTheBaron.

DannamEmpire's map is derived from mine (or rather from the blank version Blank map of Europe 1190.svg) and mostly changes the north-eastern border to encompass Pomerelia and western Prussia (under the Teutonic Order) roughly based on Droysens-26/Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer, as well as integrating the Papacy. DannamEmpire's map does not seem to add Silesia to the HRE, unlike Droysens.

Mine is primarily based on Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg. The borders around Venice and the coastline of Frisia/the Netherlands are from Droysens. The north-eastern border of the HRE (with Poland) was also modified to encompass the Neumark; again this was mostly from Droysens (but aligns with the sub-map on Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg, dated 1176). I don't know/remember where the area around Słupsk/Stolp came from though; I really could/should have done a better job documenting it. I was also rather sloppy around the border of Silesia.

I think the southern boundary with Sicily may be inaccurate for 1190 – I think Abruzzo was taken by Sicily in (or before?) 1156.

I am uncertain about the status of the State of the Teutonic Order re. the Empire, although I believe it was ambiguous, similar to the Papacy (at least initially). Silesia though was (I think) unambiguously outside the Empire until it came under Bohemia in the 14c.

As it happens I've been trying to "upgrade" Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer.svg for a while as there are actually several issues with it (including some other inaccuracies by Droysens/Andree, some caused by me (mostly typos and such) and the distortion in the middle of the map around the border between Germany and Italy caused by the source scan straddling two pages of a book). Unfortunately there are some areas that are proving quite difficult.

For what it's worth Droysens isn't the only atlas which gives that eastern border – Muir's Historial Atlas 1976 (first edition 1938) does too, Silesia and all (maybe derived from the same source?).

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 07:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I may be missing something obvious, but what is the source for the date (1190) in c:File:Holy_Roman_Empire_in_1190.svg? Does the source map Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer (Central Europe during the time of the Staufer) give a date I haven't seen, or could it be anything from 1138 to 1254?

The maps on this article all suffer from various inaccuracies, even those that are ultimately based on published sources. I hope things like Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire/Archive_7#Error_in_1618_map? can be an example of how to resolve those inaccuracies, one by one, to make sure that the great research and work put into the maps by individual users like Alphathon and others isn't wasted. Renerpho (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It does not date to 1190. Although originally claimed to be 1190 by the uploader (presumably based on my original) they later changed the description from "in 1190" to "early to middle 13th century (c. 1200- c. 1250)"; the file name remained unchanged however. While no concrete date is given in the original source (Droysens) various elements place it in the first half of the 13th century (e.g. presence of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, Hohenstaufen Sicily, Epirus-held Corfu, existence of the Duchy of Merania etc). I believe it is actually a generalised overview rather than any specific date though, as some inclusions cannot be reconciled (unless they are simply errors). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I suspect they're a combination of both. Compare the sub-section below about some additional claimed inaccuracies, the veracity of which need to be confirmed.

If we want to show the HRE's at its greatest territorial extent (which is what the infobox currently does) then we need to

(1) establish when it was at its greatest extent, and
(2) find a reliable map for that date.

Both may be difficult/impossible, so maybe we should... change the goal? A map of every place that belonged to the HRE at some point in time? Renerpho (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This map (or something like it) is the best solution that does not result in a WP:SYNTH. It no doubt has errors but this is to be expected of a map showing a whole continent. The advantage is that it's a single source which can easily be verified. Correcting every small "error" on this map would lead to a map with dozens of sources and little way to verify them or reconcile contradictions between sources. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@HetmanTheResearcher: That may be true if any of our two maps was closely following their source, in which case we could write "according to Droysens" (or whoever we choose to believe) in the image caption. But our maps don't follow their sources. Renerpho (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I would support removing all those regional sources then and leave only the general map of Europe. It's an infobox map that should provide a general picture, not really needed to have all those smaller sources. Regional maps can have their place in the main body of the article. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand (and share) your desire for a clean and well-referenced map, but it would be a shame to lose the work that was put into these. Maybe we can find a good compromise that works. Renerpho (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

If you're talking about this file: File:Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer.svg#file then I would have no problem keeping it. I don't actually see why Prussia (and its accuracy) is an issue since that is not the primary focus of the map; rather, the internal boundaries are. My issue is that taking this map that's showing 1250(?) and placing it in a map of Europe in 1190 is a synthesis of two maps (and assumes that the borders did not change in 60 years. If anything the bigger issue is that the current map does not even represent the source it is claiming to; Siciliy is clearly shown being in personal union in that map yet this is not reflected at all in the current infobox map. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Ideally a "greatest extent" map should probably be there but if we cannot source one then it's really not that big of a deal. "A map of every place that belonged to the HRE at some point in time" seems reasonable in theory but I don't think it is a good idea in practice – if it is just all coloured the same that could easily be misconstrued in a maximalist, almost irredentist fashion, and if we can't source a "greatest extent" map then anything only occurring during that period (e.g. Prussia) would be equally suspect/dubious. (By the way, what do you mean by "I suspect they're a combination of both." – what does the "they" refer to?) Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alphathon: "They" was referring to all the maps we're discussing. The published maps, and the two maps on Commons. "Both" was referring to "generalised overview" and "simply errors". Sorry for having been unclear there. Renerpho (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Unlike the Droysens map the original 1190 source is explicitly claimed to be "about 1190". Unfortunately the title is cropped off on the one uploaded to commons but you can see the full thing here, where it is titled "Europe and the Mediterranean Lands about 1190". For what it's worth the next page "The Holy Roman Empire under the Hohenstaufen, 1138—1254 (which has to be a generalisation), also places both Pomerelia and Prussia within the Empire, explicitly stating "...Pomerania, Pomerelia and Prussia were added to the Empire during the Hohenstaufen Period." The page "Central Europe in 1378" also places the "Domain of the Teutonic Order", including Prussia and Pomerelia, in the empire. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand the page Europe, 1360—1400 seems to show it outside the empire. I suspect it's one of those weird situations where it is both true to say that it is part of the empire and outside it – as Srnec says, a sui generis. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chlebek Boży: Could you expand on what you said about East Prussia and the Gdansk Pomeralia? If there's a contradiction (maybe with different reliable sources making contradictory claims), that would be very good to know. Renerpho (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

as Srnec says, a sui generis -- how about using hachured lines for it in the map? Renerpho (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alphathon: Sorry, I forgot to tag you. Renerpho (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about it – there's no need to do it every time. Hatching isn't great for maps like that as we can't really control how they're viewed. A lighter green (like the Patrimony of Saint Peter/Latium on Holy Roman Empire 1190.svg) would probably be better. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 03:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Anything that indicates that it's an unusual case would be fine. A lighter green sounds good to me. The same could be applied to other parts of the HRE that turn out to be weird. The less we falsely claim that this is a black and white (or "dark green and white") situation, the better. Renerpho (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The chronology and sources given here may prove useful. Renerpho (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the different sources, and alleged inaccuracies of the various maps, creating one [as a union of maps] as an editor is WP:SYNTH. I believe we need to show an actual authoritative map that has been located outside of efforts made within WP to correct what we may think are inaccuracies. That is the job of a professional cartographer, IMO.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Bobsd. Renerpho (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate map of the HRE in the 13th Century

This page needs to have the maps showing the peak of HRE, as well as the part of the article describing it removed immediately. The empire didn't control Silesia under the rule of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, with it only joining in the 14th Century, due to becoming a dependency of the Bohemian crown. Another inaccuracy are East Prussia and the Gdansk Pomerelia belonging to the Empire, at that time. They were never part of the HRE. Chlebek Boży (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You are correct about Silesia. Srnec (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alphathon: Are they right about Silesia? Your map c:File:Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer.svg (as well as Droysen) includes the Duchy of Silesia, and the article dates that map to the reign of Frederick II (1220-1250). If Silesia joined in 1328(?), that's a problem. Renerpho (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

See here for an explicit statement that Silesia became part ofthe Empire in 1335. As for the Ordenstaat, the Golden Bull of Rimini certainly treats the secular authority of the Order as stemming from the Empire, so while it was a bit sui generis in practice I think it is fine theoretically for the 13th century. Bigger issue is what lands were actually controlled by the Order at any given moment. That I cannot say. Srnec (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Yes, I believe Droysens was wrong to include Silesia on that map. It is one of the things I intend to correct about it when I get the updated one done. It is relatively simple to move the HRE border though so I could easily upload a version which just changes that in the meantime. The only question then is was it part of Poland or not not? (I don't know, and I think it was at least de facto independent at some points.) Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The only question then is was it part of Poland or not not? -- Srnec's source seems to indicate that it was. Renerpho (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Where? I only see that it came to the Empire unequivocally in 1335 when Poland renounced its claims (referring to the Treaty of Trentschin), but that doesn't mean the Silesian dukes were vassals of the Polish High Duke/King at all previous dates. There was a period of fragmentation in Poland in the 12th-14th centuries during which the Polish "provinces" were de facto independent, although I don't know whether they still acknowledged the High Duke/King as overlord, or if they did whether it was anything more than nominal. (To be clear I am not claiming anything one way or another, I legitimately don't know.) Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I agree we should be careful with such claims/conclusions. Renerpho (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Modern countries in lede

@Johnbod and Nihlus1: Re this addition, which I removed but Johnbod restored (diff) I don't think this is a good addition to the first paragraph of the article. Yes, knowledge of the "territory" of the HRE is useful, but it changed over time and is too complicated to accurately discuss in a sentence, and requires a huge disclaimer that the territory was more like the EU than it was a state for much of its history. So there were the parts of the HRE that were "really" part of the HRE, and the parts that were maybe de jure part of the HRE but it didn't matter post-Reformation or so. I'm fine with discussing the territory but it needs to be less confident than this kind of semi-authoritative list IMO. SnowFire (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm entirely sure that something needs to be said on the extent right at the start. The rest of the lead just about covers the gradual dwindling of actual imperial control over the period, but perhaps something could be added to the first para. I don't think I accept your last bit; once the Habsburgs were in place the important distinction was between Habsburg lands and the rest, but whether a territory was in the HRE or not continued to "matter" at times long after that. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)