Why was The Holy Roman Empire so Dysfunctional? 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

It lasted for roughly 1000 years, they must have done something right?

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

I would rather live in medieval HRE, than France, or England

"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse." -Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

I don't see why the HRE is "dysfunctional". Sounds like it was a decentralized union that maintained peace among the largest population in Europe for nearly a millennium. How is that dysfunctional?

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.

While we appreciate the history, the framing here seems unnecessarily reductionist, even given your short time frame. You seem to suppose that the Empire either had total control or was worthless. Perhaps it served many functions -- as an ideal, for one -- in the light of the times, so going back in time, anachronistically, like an efficiency expert doing a time study analysis of a factory floor process, isn't as insightful a take as it might first appear.

Nothing says how objective and well researched is something than start with unironically quoting and parroting opinions of its political rivals and enemies. One with any knowledge and specially with name like Knowledgia should know history is written by the victors and in this case its centralised absolutist states like France and not HRE. One wouldnt use quotes of Romans about German barbarians as accurate 100% unbiassed description but would take into account both the cultural and political lens thru which Romans look at barbarians and also at who's behest and for who's consumption Roman authors wrote such report about Germans. But when it comes to HRE we unabashedly judge it according both our current opinions and views how things should be and the highly politicised views of HRE contemporary competitors and opponents. Its situation not unlike vids about current politics or e.g. EU- the truth and facts and actual actions and opinions of involved ppl( like Europeans in case of EU) are often less important than opinion of the author whats the correct policy and correct way how to do things and how something should look like.

Kind of feels ahead of its time, like a version of the eu before mass communication and education. A framework that provided a floor, but let everyone do their own thing within the structure. All of thr good parts of competition, while removing most of tge bad.

You literally only talk about the Empire under the Habsburgs. Why do you not talk about its golden Age und the Hohenstaufens. Were it was more centralised than France. Also it had a Capitol in Aachen witch was the simbolic Capitol of the Reich. Were the Emperor lived was not the capitol, it was called the emperors residence. It was holy because if you would look at the Real Empire you would know that Emperor Barbarossa declared that that Emperor is Gods Ruler on Earth. Back then that was seen as legit even by Suleiman. Roman because 1: it owned Rome. 2: it was seen as a New Wstern Roman Empire. And Empire if you would look at the idk 500 YEARS bevore the Habsburgs ruled. When Suleiman heard that the holy Roman Empire under Barbarossa was on its way he said "Allah I beg you let me fight 10 Richard and Phillipes but dont let the Germans reach me" this shows that the Empire was feared and the undisputed Hegimon of Europe. "It even deveated the Mongols in Austria". If you really like history then look at history not at the funny memes because Videos like this insult people like me. The Empire was the golden age of my people. And if you say your funny: NeItHeR HoLY RoMAn Or EMpIrE its not funny you are just a retard who does not know shit about history

This is such a cynical take on an important institution, totally misunderstood by modern “academics”

And yet, it survived for almost a thousand years (more, if you count Charlemagne's coronation in 800 as the start). A thousand years is longer than: - The Persian Empire, - Alexander's Empire, - The Roman Empire, - The Mongol Empire, - The Spanish/Portuguese/French/Dutch (and other colonial) empires, - The British Empire. ... It pretty much outlived almost every other empire. I don't know about you guys, but I call that functional.

In short. It's the Medieval equivalent to the EU today.

Using the Voltaire quote for the entire Empire shows your knowledge or lack thereof for this empire or atleast lack of understanding. If you use the Voltaire quote to point at the end to the decline it is kind off tolerable but the quote has always been stupid and wrong.

Meanwhile the Eastern Romans are looking over like: “bruh..”

When Brandenburg and Saxony are separated from what would later become Germany: *Déjà vu, I've just been in this place before*

Ahh we can’t have a HRE video without the Voltaire quote.

The decentralization part was great. Responsibilities were more localized. People were more autonomous. For the most part it worked great. The fact it lasted so long is proof.

It had very negative aspects (witch craze, Thirty Years' War ...) but also very remarkable, progressive aspects (Gutenberg, Leibniz, Gauß, Kant, Goethe, Mozart, Beethoven, Dürer, Gothic architecture ...). The existence of many competing principalities was beneficial to the development of science, technology, and art.

"How much border gore do you want?" "Yes"

Say what you will about the HRE, but you cannot deny the massive economic foundation that it left behind for the German Empire and the states that are culturaly related to it.

Hi There! It was a wonderful and interesting video.That's because,it shared many new ideas about Roman Empire. Thanks.

So you´re asking a Frenchman about sth. German ?? What could possibly go wrong.... 😉 this hatred by Voltaire is pure nonsense. the HRE has been stabilizing europe for a thousand years, borders changed only little during that time in middle europe.

0:54 Very flattering map, to me as a German of (East) Prussian descent at least, though the northeasternmost territory shown here did not belong to the HRE, but to the (aligned) Teutonic Order. No part of Prussia (or what would later be called East Prussia) belonged to the HRE as far as I remember. The monk knights obviously answered to the pope in case of doubt, and not a secular power, which was arguably subordinate to the pope in Rome anyway.

>open the video >dumb quote from a pseudo intellectual who understood nothing >close the video

Just a little detail... Lion with two tails was symbol used only in Bohemia and it is still a state symbol of Czechia. Habsburgs and Palatinate had its own regular lions with one tail.

Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy nor Roman, however it lasted for at least 1000 years.

Ironically, the HRE ended up as such a disfunctional mess due to the same reason that caused the West-Roman Empire to become such a disfunctional mess during its last centuries: Everyone was more concerned about their own powerbase than they were about the Empire.

You'd think nationalism would centralize the HRE cause everyone was German but no. I don't know how Bismark figured out how to unite the Germans.

"why?" proceed to look at its map "oh, now i see it"

Really enjoy your videos! Thank you!!!

Fun fact: We kept a few of these independent territories with the princes after Napoleon was defeated. They later joined the German Empire and although not fully independent anymore, the Kaiser was *never* Emperor of Germany but German Emperor and King of Prussia. Just as Franz II. was (the last) Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria. After WWII the allies and most of all the Americans messed the country up a bit and formed new semi-independent states by just glueing a few together and erasing Prussia and its territories. These are today's federal states in Germay

ufff why is so much wrong here? What a mix from bias and lacking research

another solid video!

Nicely explained.

*Ah, yes: the Unholy Germanic Mess.*

surprisingly England never thought "oh, the HRE is collapsing? better get in on the spoils!"

Nicely informative video.

It wasn't. It lasted 1000 years. The HRE was a center of art and culture. It was the place where the printing press was invented and where the Reformation started. It didn't cause two world wars like the United Germany. Its one major conflict-- the 30 years war-- was caused by an unwanted attempt by the Austrians to centralize authority and impose Catholicism.

In German it’s not called an Empire. It’s called „Reich“ which would better be translated with realm. The German word for Empire would be „Imperium“, same as in Latin.

You're mixing up multiple events and border changes in time. For instance: Napoleon did NOT participated in the conquest of the Netherlands. And you're spelling "Württemberg" on the map wrong too. It's not "Wurttenburg". (I feel like english-speakers are mixing up "berg" and "burg" a lot. Is it just me ?)

What is the name of that epic song at the middle of the video? Could you share the title please?

Real quick, Charlemagne was dubbed the "Holy Roman Emperor" by the pope for conquering Rome, but he was the head figure of the Kingdom of the Franks, not the Holy Roman Empire (Which wouldn't be founded till the 10th century). Otto I was the first real Holy Roman Emperor as he formed the actual empire after he conquered Rome

There were around 1000 entities in the HRE alone, much only consist of one city, the Free Imperial City

This angered the Emperor's father, who punished him severely.

3:08 take a moment by looking at this. Within HRE it just looks like a jigsaw puzzle. So confusing.

I'm sorry but talking about Charlemagne's HRE in reference to Voltaire's infamous quote is just plain wrong. There were actually 2 HREs in history. The first 1, which Charlemagne created, was very short lived due to the gavelkind succession laws. The second, the one Voltaire eventually talked about, was founded by Otto I, King of Germany(a title which itself was very short lived as Germany ceased being a kingdom shortly afterwards). I also don't understand how you can talk about the HRE failing when your starting point is basically the 30 year war, at which point the HRE already existed for many centuries. It's also funny you say its decentralization was a major weakness when all European kingdoms, including those of France and England, were decentralized throughout the entire medieval era. It's only after the Renaissance that the various European nations begun centralizing and this culminated with King Louis XIV's famous quote: 'I am the state' which helped coin the term 'absolute monarchy' in order to clearly differentiate it from previous iterations of monarchy which were far less centralized. The HRE itself lasted for nearly a thousand years, you can't just pick and choose specific eras in history where it was failing and say these are the reasons the HRE was dysfunctional. The only argument you can make is that while other European nations did eventually centralize, the HRE never did and this ultimately led to its downfall. This is a far cry from calling the HRE's nearly thousand year history a dysfunctional mess.

Let's not ignore that the HRE often defeated the French (allied to the Ottomans), Napoleon is a special case since he had the benefit of conscription and nationalism to wage a total war, while the HRE used semi-professional armies that were basically a monarch's private army - not cheap and hard to replace. The moment other nations also started to conscript soldiers who were motivated by nationalistic fervor, France lost. It's not that the HRE was ineffective, it did it's job admirably for a millennia, the problem arose with a new aspect of mass warfare (especially artillery) which lasted until the invention of the hydrogen bomb. If by some chance the HRE dodged the Napoleon bullet, it would have been a model nation by todays standards, superior to the EU.

But, what really is interesting, the so "dysfunctional" empire lasted for about 1000 years!

European during Caesar's conquest: We will never submit to rome! European during middle age: We are successors of the Roman empire!

Short answer: It was not dysfunctional. There's a reason why it existed for a thousand years.

No internet. Why is the modern world so dysfunctional? The internet.

It's funny how the people that once fought rome tried to revive it

Wow, that's incredible!!

I think the extreme decentralisation of the HRE wasn't a weakness per se, but actually its greatest advantage for longevity. True, such great fracturement made it difficult to have any meaningful strategy at all, in pretty much anything really. But that also made it nearly impossible for outside forces to meaningfully influence the HRE. Also annexing it by military force was a tough one. Every single count and prince and king had his own soldiers and there was no real capital or actual leader to target for an decapitation blow to the entire empire. A great help surely was also that the common poeple of the HRE spoke very similar languages if not the same mostly. That made the fracturement not as big of a problem as it was in the late stages of the original Roman empire.

Just because it wasn’t a centralized empire Doesn’t mean it was ”bad”

“Servitude of any sort is distasteful to all men, but especially objectionable is subjection to others in the case of those who ought to rule.” ― Ulrich von Hutten,

At the end of the day, it did last a thousand years. So I don't know how dysfunctional it could have really been.

Almost nothing is said about before decentralization. Nothing about the Investiture Controversy, nothing about emperor Frederick Barbarossa, nothing about emperor Charles IV. And also Austria is pictured with large borders too soon, there were the Lands of the Bohemian Crown and there was no Austrian Empire until 1804.

Man I'm just so facinated by HRE, if anyone knows a good book on its history please recommend it I would love to read it.

The Napoleon was responsable for the dissolution of two of the oldest states in Europe: the Republic of Venice in 1797 and the HRE in 1804.

people seem to judge 1000 years of history on a single quote from a frenchmen. People just seem to ignore the first 500-600 years were the empire was very strong and imposing and nothing like the quote implies.

Amazing! Fascinating! I’m going to bye a HRE flag right now for my room

Great video! I would just say the HRE was indeed Holy roman and an empire at its beginning. But rapidly declined. Roman as it was considered the successor to Rome. It was holy as the pope chose the emperor. And it was an empire before it collapsed into smaller states ( under Otto the great it was still pretty united inder the emperor)

Why is America so dysfunction... up next.

Was originally a confederation tribal , after ducal and finally elective imperial .A chaos of different people, religion (slavs pagan folks) and intrincated system of power transmision.

This is riddled with mistakes in the first minutes it’s not that the popes chose the emperors especially not Charlemagne but it was a circular agreement that made for the multiple wars between the two offices.

it is to as Dysfunctional as me lol

Still lasted more than 800 years.

What the Western Europeans never get that in order for one monarch to be proclaimed as the Imperator, it is usually done with the help of the military. Those soldiers often proclaimed their generals and commanders as the new Imperators whenever it is suited them when they are not satisfied with some stuffs and policies made by the Senate.

OMG SO EARLY!!! ALSO BIG FAN!!

You could also ask:"Why was it so strong when it actually functioned?"-example: Friedrich Barbarossa

While religious freedom and other policies were definitely ahead of this day in the HRE always remember that 1 of the most destructive and violent wars happened within the Holy Roman Empire and it involved different religions. Not to mention, the decentralized "empire" is cool in theory but when countries exist within and outside the relm....it's not gonna work

Dysfunctional? Yet it survived for almost a thousand years despite being surrounded by powerful and hostile neighbours, and religious rivalry inside the empire. They constantly fought the French and the Ottoman from 16th - 18th century, yet they still not perished until 1806.

I think as others have pointed out, this is an strangely antagonistic take towards the HRE. Many of the points made here could be applied to several states in the era, including the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. For instance, the title of Emperor (Basileus) was a de facto elected position, not necessarily by dukes, but by the army or commanders of the army. Succession the empire was arguably even more messy and convoluted than in the HRE since there’s no set laws on it, leading to far more revolts. After the Arab Conquests of the 7th century the Empire moved away from the Dominate style leadership and back to having provincial governors with much more power, in effect, decentralizing the state so local rulers on the borders could deal with their threats quicker. Those are just two points, and one could arguably find more. Both were successful states, and I think it’s unfair to take such a simple take towards either.

While the HRE was very dysfunctional due to infighting and decentralization, I think it was those very things that caused it to survive for so long. Their constant infighting and reluctance to unify made it so that large scale offensive operations were never going to muster the amount of support expected of a state of such size, thus the HRE could never truly pose an existential threat to its neighbors, but in face of a foreign invasion could very well band together. To understand why this a big deal we must understand that the HRE was at the middle of Europe, meaning as a competent force they could have been a threat to any European state, thus a system that kept them from being competent was advantageous to their neighbors, therefor due to this vested interest neighboring powers felt it in their best interests to protect the HRE from change. I mean, just think from the perspective of these powers: the HRE and Spain putting up a untied front would be lethal to France, the HRE and Russia would be lethal to Poland, Poland and the HRE would pose a huge threat to Russia. That’s why all it’s neighbors loved the HRE, too weak to pose a threat, strong enough to be an effective buffer zone and counter measure against any European power getting too strong.

“It was an Unholy, Germanic, Confederation!” - Voltaire, probably

It wasnt dysfunctional, it worls just as intended by the princes.

What's the name of the background music?

Imagine calling yourself the successors of the Roman Empire when you barely hold any of their old land This comment was made by the Byzantine Gang

I think, the fact that the Peace of Westphalia allowed every federal duchy to choose freely his collaboration partner, is very important. Now, they could legally ally against the emperor. This was a big step in decentralisation

You could say that the Emperor have a HREctile Dysfuctional

And yet, the HRE is one of the most powerful entities in EU4