Why was The Holy Roman Empire so Dysfunctional?

Why was the Holy Roman Empire so Dysfunctional?

The Holy Roman Empire - neither holy, nor Roman, nor empire - we’ve all heard the jokes. Truly though, it seems that the Holy Roman Empire existed as no more than a weak attempt to revive the glory of what once was. It’s said, furthermore, that where there is smoke there must be fire, and in this case, that rings true. All of the jokes and memes about the Holy Roman Empire being a bit of a mess didn’t come from nothing. The HRE really was pretty inadequate - relatively, at least. So then, how did the successor of the magnificent Roman Empire turn out so dysfunctional?...

♦Consider to Support the Channel of Patreon and gain cool stuff:

♦Music by Epidemic Sound

♦Sources :

The Holy Roman Empire by Friedrich Heer

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, RECONSIDERED Edited by Jason Philip Coy, Benjamin Marschke, and David Warren Sabean

♦Script & Research :
Skylar Gordon

#History #HolyRomanEmpire

[monolog]

The fact that this chaotic entity survived for a thousand years is just amazing

[MatijaCG]

I think being cartographer during HRE existence was the worst job during that period of time.

[Sabersquirl]

As someone who has done graduate work in history, I feel this video is basically skimming over reductive arguments about the HRE's failings from the perspective that the HRE was a failure. It is like you, or your sources, have decided the HRE was not an effective state for what its people were going for, and worked backwards to find examples of its weakness. The whole point was that the various dukes and princes did not want the authority of a centralized state, and that the constitution of the empire helped guarantee security for smaller princes. The famous Voltaire quip should be mentioned in context, Voltaire was a French enlightenment thinker who would've been fundamentally opposed to what the empire represented. This also does really get the point across that the empire had survived for almost 1000 years, and the nature of the emperor and his subjects changed greatly over that millennium. The role that the church had over the empire's policies was also very different at the beginning of the empire than from the end. I guess I just expect more from a channel that has almost a million subscribers to give a more nuanced look at the history being presented.

[mrgopnik]

During the Middle Ages the empire actually functioned quite well and was even the most powerful nation in Western Europe. It was mainly the squabbling between the emperor and the pope which lead to it’s collapse.

[InvertedGigachad]

Video about the Holy Roman Empire without mentioning Voltaire in the first 10 secs challenge (impossible)

[BeWe]

I dont think you are being fair to the empire. You even said why but seemingly did not realize it: „the layout of the empire as a confederation type was tolerable“. Exactly and that is the point. Was the HRE a good tool to achieve Roman Empire like domination of Europe? Maybe at the very beginning but mostly no. But was it meaningless and only continued to exist because no one cared enough to dissolve it? Also no.

What it did was to balance the uncountable interests in the region, a massive task in which it mostly succeeded in. All those micro states could have never survived without the imperial protection but with it they did and many flourished and some even became major political players, the Hanseatic cities dominated northern Europe for a time, cities like Augsburg and Nuremberg and their mercantile classes engaged in colonization and had to be considered by Kings and Emperors.
I also disagree with you saying that there was barely any sense of unity. Over time it transformed into a German Empire (highlighted by the occasional use of the name Holy Roman Empire of the German nation), so Italy and the Netherlands did not had that sense indeed but the core states definitely had. States like Brandenburg-Prussia, Hannover, Saxony or Bavaria had the power to potentially gain independence, yet they never even tried until the very end, incited by the French. The protestant reformation certainly was a massive strain on all the imperial compromises but they still held for another century, longer than many expected.
The thirty years war was kind of the death blow. The population was devastated, the inland trade routes had collapsed, some trade centers in the north where now in Swedish hands, so that the small entities could no longer punch above their weight as they had done before. Additionally France and Sweden were given the right to intervene in the Empire, meaning power was no longer exclusively shared between inner-imperial actors. The imperial ability to guarantee its members independence was not yet gone completely but was heavily compromised, I already mentioned Sweden and France was constantly encroaching from the West as well.
Therefore I agree that the Empire was mostly ineffective after the thirty years war but for the most part of its existence it was not bad, it was just different.

P.S.: That I heavily focused on the positives does not mean that I think it was perfect or anything, that would definitely not be true either, it is just that the video went all-in on the negatives, so I did not have anything to add there

[zhzypom]

This is a very strange argument. "Look how dysfunctional this Empire, that lasted a 1000 years, was!"

[thelensimon]

The HRE was one of the longest lasting empires in history even though it had a vast amount of powerfull neighbours. While its ability to project power outside of its realm and exert a central authority was at best limited, that is still a great archivement.

[phigu]

This video is brimming with outdated, incomplete and frankly counterfactual information. One: Although it is called the "Holy Roman Empire" these titles didnt all happen at once. Originally it was just the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne, who picked up the Imperial Crown of the Western Imperial Court of the Roman Empire. He neither deemed it Holy, nor Roman. The 'Holy' Part only came into play later as Otto I. got the pope more solidly involved in the coronation process, but never at any point was the Emperor chosen by the pope. The "Roman" part of the name dates back to the love of the Ottonian Dynasty for Italy. The Empire was never designed as a straight up successor to Western Rome of old, that was the Eastern Roman Empire.
Two: Apart from Charlemagne, all Emperors and East Franconian (culturally german) Kings were elected by the Nobles of the Empire as a first among equals. This was a genius solution after the carolingian dynasty went extinct in the early 10th century. Five powerful duchies, all with familial ties between each other and to the now dead carolingians had a similar claim to the throne, so they decided to elect one from their number as a first among equals. This is the birth of german federalism, which continues to this day. This video follows the line of argument that successful states and institutions have to work with an overbearing central authority. The Times that the Empire had the most internal strife was when exactly this was trying to be achieved, when the Emperor tried to overreach his position as a Primus inter pares. And he invariably failed, the result being a further emancipation of the Reichsstände from the Emperor. There have been precisely 12 years where Germany was a fully centralistic state, and 40 more in what then became the east. It does not suit germany. And to think that a centralistic state is the one true way to success is harebrained given that the US is a federal state and federal modern day Germany remains as the 4th most powerful economy on earth.
Three: The Idea that the Institution of the Empire was the connective tissue that people chiefly identified with. Just no. It's been language first and foremost and from the second half of the 11th century the german speaking princes of the empire formed a political party to differentiate themselves from Imperial Italy, Burgundy and the Emperor. As a political entity with the election of the first and second Kings in 911 and 919 one of the chief concerns of the emperor was to organise the defense of the States against outside agressors, like the Magyars in the 10th century. This effectiveness was only diminished after 10 centuries to the point where an overwheliming tide of revolutionary troops was able to disrupt this pretty stable system. England and France each had more revolutions, rebellions and internal strife than the HRE. In large part because the Empire was never designed as a centralistic entity.
As Barbara Stollenberg-Rillinger put it, the Holy Roman Empire was a institution of communication. When communication worked, everything went swimmingly. All Members prospered and the unique regional cultures were able to thrive. Only when the communication failed, like in 1525 or 1618 was the Empire in a serious internal crisis.

Dont judge the Empire by the standards of Britain or France. You wouldnt do that for Poland, Italy or India. It is a unique place that found unique solutions to its problems and it worked remarkably well for an incredible amount of time.

[EinhornBoy-qgpm]

Everyone talking about how bad the HRE was, but It still lastet about 1000 years which is quite long for a country...

[heinzlilio]

*I swear if I see that cringe Voltaire qoute here just one time*

[PaxTubeChannel]

If a state lasts over 1, 000 years, I think that's a success story. If the HRE was "dysfunctional", what was a "functional" empire? The British Empire, the lasted about 300 years? The Mongol Empire?

If anything, the HRE showed more dynamism than any state since the Roman Empire itself.

[tobiasharstel]

There are many mistakes in this video, the electors ALWAYS elected the kaiser (German for ceasar), only in the 13 hundreds it was enscribted into a law (goldene Bulle, the oldest constitution in europe). This was based on a germanic tradition called ting (gathering), were all the tribes elected a master chieftain, to protect them from foreign powers. It also wasn't ineffective until the end of the 30 years war, 1648, as Germany was destroyed and 33% of population died. It lasted 900 years, created some of the most modern law systems (magdeburger law is still basis of some European cities like Prag f.e.), decided about what are kingdoms (early history of poland) and to some extend influences Europe until today (look how the European commission is selected...very similar like in HRE), it's maybe difficult to understand or complex, but I wouldn't call it ineffective

[NathanS__]

Wow there's a ton of bad history here right off the bat. The Popes didn't choose the Emperors nor did they request the Emperors to be elected. This video is just adding to the common misconceptions of what the HRE was.

[giorgijioshvili]

"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."

-Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

[Spartan]

The HRE wasn't all that dysfunctional, it protected the small and micro "states" within its "borders" for a millennia and outside of inheritance and person unions, it kept much of the "empire" from being annexed while retaining a massive amount of autonomy. It most especially assisted in the prevention of France, Poland, Russia, and the Ottomans from dominating central Europe until Napoleon came about. And Napoleon won almost every fight he was in and yet the HRE itself still gave him numerous amounts of trouble before the Habsburg Empire was proclaimed. The fact a mostly theoretical political entity lasted for so long and was so effective for so long at protecting its rather non-existent borders is a testament to the strength and quality of the HRE. Even beyond such it was the first entity in the world to protect religious freedom, an unheard of tradition to be found in the rest of the world up until the late 1700s, (and it did this by the 1500s) granted that was after a bunch of religious wars, but the fact that it happened in the HRE and not in Russia, Poland, France, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire is a testament to how advanced the concept of the HRE really was. (I am aware Poland/PLC and Ottomans had some forms of tolerance, but that was nothing compared to the tolerance of a religious peace found in the HRE, its quite a unique case in history)

[boulderbash]

The picture of HRE as dysfunctional came from German nationalists of 18th century. They viewed the empire as obstruction for them to create a national country like the French, British, and Russia.

The empire itself was doing well in keeping law and order within its borders. At least mostly. Its feudal members prefered to settle their disputes at emperor's court and later at empire parliament, rather than outright war. The Reformation War was an exception instead of rule.

[Argacyan]

I'm halfway into the video & I get the sense that we're using the same factors other countries & empires get praised for as an argument suddenly that this time they were bad: democratic structures, religious freedom, decentralization and so on.

[Grasslander]

The Holy Roman Empire brought peace, stability, security and prosperity to a huge area. But because it is called Roman, you say it's a "weak" attempt to resurrect "what once was"? If they had any other name maybe you would have seen what actually existed.

[StArShIpEnTeRpRiSe]

Funfact: in Hungarian language, we call it "Német-Római Birodalom" Which means: German-Roman Empire.