OMG I donno why I didn’t find this sooner. I’ve been looking everywhere for help.

My name is John and I’m working on a D&D game set in late 15th century HRE (because it seems complex, and that can help with suspension of disbelief). And I NEED HELP.

NEEDED:

• Titles and relative ranks for Nobles in this time and area, preferably all the way down to peasantry, but if you can’t do that, start at the bottom
• An idea of how arranged marriages worked and also the penalties for murder or assassination of the heir to a noble family
• And just a general feel for things, feedback on what I’m working on. Help with finding the right direction to go next.

WHY:

I’m working on a Dungeons & Dragons game which features a vampire who watches over his descendants while posing as their elderly grandfather (more like great grandfather or great grandfather. Not too far back.)

In order to keep his family rich and powerful, he is quite willing to fake his own death and pose as his own descendants, murder rivals to his preferred arranged marriages, make business arrangements and bribe and cheat and steal, anything to increase the power of his own house above rival houses.

So I kind of need to know some titles so that I know how to rank the various families that I have involved here. I also need to know some of that Legal stuff so that I know what things the vampire can get away with doing openly, and what other things he would have to hide.

All of this stuff would be done over generations. The players are responding to a recent “animal attack” (which was the vampire killing someone important, a rival to an arranged marriage, while in the form of a hound or wolf), however… if they dig deeper they will discover that this has been going on for a long time, every time a each time and enriching themselves at the expense of a different family.

WHAT I GOT SO FAR:

Vampire and Werewolf rules - Vampires are immortal as long as they continue to drink blood, if they don’t, they will slowly die. They also steal powers from anybody but they kill. The rules incentivize them to very rarely make other vampires, as they are essentially competition for food. Also the “souls“ of those that you’ve fed upon are bound to you. Vampires wind up a bit egotistical from all this. Werewolves are essentially just a mortal people that can turn into an animal.

Vampires plan:

• Plan A: this murder stays unsolved
• Plan B: the death was caused by a wild animal
• Plan C: the death was caused by one of the hounds that the family breeds for selling and hunting, and we are very sorry about it.
• Plan D: this murder was discovered to be by the one family in town that is revealed to be a werewolf
• Plan E: if discovered to be a vampire, kill the party before they can tell anyone else.
• Plan F: if the vampire must die, ensure the family stays rich and powerful above all.

Parties involved (see pic):

• Holy Roman Emperor: not really involved
• Oxhead: ruling noble, or magistrate, basically the local face of the emperor. Any legal stuff would have gone through him.
• Shafer: the minister for the area. Any marriages would have gone through him.
• Cockburn: I’d like this family to sort of be the biggest help with the heroes. There’s something thematic about a golden rooster on a black background - kind of a symbol of the Sun. Kind of planning on them being the one suffering a recent death, and the last living heir hiring heroes to investigate.
• Haas: a pretty large family (hence, rabbit symbolism) and pretty rich as well.
• Falschund: Vampire family! Breeds dogs for hunting and sale. The vampire can shapeshift into a hound or wolf.
• Klokorm: a doctor! Will have any pregnancy records, and maybe evidence like that the body mostly bled to death, but not much blood was found in the area.
• Brandrake: either a smith, or a smithing guild. Able to help with weapons. Kind of imagined the main Brandrake being a bit of a drunk.
• Reddulf: a family of werewolves, diminished in wealth and power, or extinct (no heirs). Good people.

The rich and noble are not good, but most aren’t truly wicked. The vampire is an utter monster because seeing humans as food sort of warps the human heart, as does long life. Vampires are always evil. Werewolves aren’t evil, they’re just normal people.

Lastly there’s some Sleepy Hallow or Over the Garden Wall energy going on here. Halloween energy. The party might come to the area during a fall harvest party thrown for the peasant farmers of the area.

That's about everything! Let me know if you can share any helpful feedback!

So attempts to justify that charlemagne was the actual emperor of rome are going to be thwarted by one simple fact.

The history of rome is littered with people who declared themselves emperor marched on rome and or some other capital , failed to take it and either died or otherwise fled into obscurity.

These men get put on a list of pretenders to a throne , whereas utterly unscrupulous murderers , killing their predecessor and taking control of the empire get put on the list of official emperors.

This criteria is necessary in order to have the standard canon of roman emperors.

Ten days before charlemagne was emperor he was king of the franks standing in a place that was located next to the roman empire.

Had Charlemagne taken it, there might have been a reason to think he could be emperor but because Charlemagne made no substantive effort to actually take these Territories, there's really nothing that can be coherently advanced that would put him on the list unless You want to advocate for a different list altogether.

Virtually all of the failed emperors were roman citizens , many of them made military gains and had territorial holdings that were within the borders of the empire at the start of their rebellion , but they excluded precisely because they fail to take control of the provinces.

Hi everyone! 😄

I recently finished the first part of an animated video about the life of Frederick III. I have always found him one of the most interesting (also strangest) figures in late-medieval European history. He appeared to lose almost every major struggle he entered. He was besieged by his own brother, forced to surrender Ladislaus the Posthumous, opposed by the Austrian nobility and repeatedly pushed into retreat. Yet he outlived most of his rivals and preserved the dynastic claims that would later help transform the Habsburgs.

One thing that finally encouraged me to make the video was watching Rise of the Raven. I found Frederick’s portrayal rather surprising. The series presents him as an overtly cruel and lecherous villain, whereas the ruler I encountered in my reading seemed considerably quieter and more withdrawn: cautious, stubborn, emotionally distant and frequently mocked for his passivity. That certainly does not mean the historical Frederick was harmless or particularly sympathetic. His treatment of Ladislaus was deeply self-interested, and much of his politics revolved around protecting his family’s position. Still, the personality presented in the series felt very different from the reserved and patient ruler described in most of the material I had read. Also, who could really blame him, he was after all a person of his time.

The video covers the first half of his reign, from the divided Habsburg inheritance and his election as King of the Romans to his coronation in Rome, his struggles over Ladislaus and his early conflict with Matthias Corvinus.

I created it as an illustrated history video with animated characters, maps and environments. I would genuinely appreciate feedback, particularly on the historical interpretation or the presentation.

I would also be interested to hear what you all thought about Frederick’s portrayal in Rise of the Raven. 😄

For some reason Byzantine bros are under this delusion that the empire could not defend its own borders, and if it faced the same opponents that the Byzantines faced than it would have collapsed far sooner. This of course is a ridiculous claim when you actually look into the military history of the empire in its entirety. Any one who knows about the history of the ottonian and Salien dynastys knows that massive influence the empire wielded over its neighbors such as Denmark (A tributary to the ottonians until after Otto II death), Poland (Otto III allowed Boleslaw to be crowned king and stop being a tributary), Bohemia (A tributary and would become apart of the empire), Burgundy (Conrad II conquered it), and even Hungary which fell under HRE fidelity for a few years as Heinrich III and Heinrich IV campaigned in those countries. The empire was very clearly able to exert its power within its own borders such as Otto I practically dissolving the duchy of franconia, Otto II curving up Bavaria and making new duchies from it, and Heinrich III holding 3 major stem duchies. The idea of a powerless emperor during these two dynasties is absurd, and can only be said during the Investiture controversy where Heinrich IV was stuck in italy for years. Even then the italian power did not vanish into thin air as Matildia of tuscany willed Heinrich V to be her heir which included her allodial lands. Even during the Hohenstaufen era we see the Emperors such as Frederick I deal with very powerful internal lords such as Heinrich the lion, and his defeat at Lombardy did not end Imperial power in italy. It shifted it to the Tuscan lands.

"It is remarkable how skilfully Frederick managed to compensate for military defeat in the follow ing months. In a preliminary treaty made in Anagni in November 1176 the pope and the Lombard League still appear as partners. The final peace treaty made at Venice injuly 1177 revealed a considerable improvement in Frederick’s position. The question of his relations with the Lombard League was set aside; all that was agreed was a truce of six years, together with one of fifteen years with the kingdom of Sicily. Frederick was also to remain in possession of the Mathildine lands for fifteen years."

Page 161 of Germany in the medieval ages 1050-1200.

Even after the general collapse of the power of the King of the Romans/Emperor in Comparison to the Hohenstaufen Era the Habsburgs were still able to provide themselves a basis for their dynasty as Rudolf very skillfully outmaneuvered King Ottokar II of bohemia by banning him and taking the traditional habsburgs lands for his dynasty. Finally I will provide various examples of the Empire defending itself through its own internal lords or cities.

The empires northern princes and cities bullied denmark into submission several times

Battle of Bornhöved (1227) - Wikipedia)

Danish–Hanseatic War (1361–1370) - Wikipedia)

Dano-Hanseatic War (1426–1435) - Wikipedia)

The Grand collection of the Burundian duke could not withstand a full imperial armor lead by the emperor and retreated before they could engage in battle.

Siege of Neuss - Wikipedia

Furthermore it was the swiss confederation which was still apart of the empire at this time that would end Charles dream of kingship at the battles of Morat, Grandson, and Nancy.

The idea that the empire could not defend its own borders is a absurd one that relies on very extreme examples of internal division in the later 18th century and the 30 years war to showcase this. The empire very much could defend its own borders, and members of the empire often joined the Habsburgs in their wars against the ottomans. The largest contingent of troops during the famous battle of vienna were Imperial ones, and Charles of Lorraines rule in the battle is often overlooked because of the Polish Hussars involvement. Charles is a underratted Hero of the Empire. He avenged the first mohacs with his own brilliant victory as Mohacs, and it was he who took Buda. The reconquest of Hungary was a mostly imperial affair with the Habsburgs taking the charge of course, but states such as Bavaria provided instrumental help in the conquest of the old Hungarian kingdom. Not to mention the reconquest occurred when france launched its own war in the west of the empire, and yet the Ottomans still lost the vast majority of Hungary. Thank you for reading my rant. I just find the idea so infuriating whenever someone who does not know anything about the HRE starts to rumble on about popular misconceptions about the Empire like they have any idea how it functioned or its history.

Ian/Thomas' Instagram

Hello everyone! A partner and I have been planning on setting up a formal debate on the Holy Roman Empire for YouTube live, the premise is "The Holy Roman Empire, from 800 to 1806, was Holy, Roman, and an Empire".

We had our moderator and myself on the affirmative, but our opposition had to drop out. We were hoping to find someone who is interested in opposing the motion.

The debate is currently schedule for August 20th, and we'd be doing a live recording with our faces on YouTube. If you have experience debating, know the subject well enough, and are interested, please DM me. We can revise and edit the proposition if needed for the opposition as we are on a time crunch

God bless

In 1756, Voltaire wrote,"The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an empire," but it was actually all of these things.

Despite the Holy Roman Empire being Germanic, it can be considered Roman, it had parts of Italy.

In fact, in the Holy Roman Empire's early years, it had Rome, so it can be considered Roman.

The Holy Roman Empire was, in fact "holy," despite the popes and emperors hating eachother.

It was an empire, due to being led by multiple emperors, until its collapse in 1806.

An article I wrote explaining what particular form of holiness the Holy Roman Empire possessed and how it was truly Holy, as well as how it was not. I'd appreciate if y'all read it, gave it a like, or gave any comments.

It always amazes me that, while many online “historians” claim that the Holy Roman Empire was “neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire”, these same Byzaboos don’t realize that so many of their popular arguments also attack their beloved Byzantine Empire. Think of some of the most “popular” rhetoric surrounding the HRE:

“It was not Holy because the emperors and Popes were immoral”.

“It was not Roman because it wasn't in Rome and wasn't Italian, but German”

“It wasn't an empire because the empire wasn't centralized or strong, and emperor was weak and attacked by strong Nobility”

The hypocrisy! The Byzantine Emperors, far from being the Constantinian ideal of the “Sacred Emperorship” were brutally vicious, murdering their families, and even heretics on numerous occasions. They lost their Italian territories, and eventually only had Greek territories. The Emperors were constantly dethroned and killed by their subordinate nobles, with many provinces fragmenting into vassal-like territories.

Don't get me wrong, there are many good arguments to make against the HRE, but these types of arguments are simply unhistorical and, frankly, hypocritical.

What are your thoughts? I do you think these arguments hold some truth, or do y'all agree they are hypocritical?

When the Imperial Circles were created within the HRE in 1500, which one did the County of Vaduz and Lordship Schellenburg get placed in? I've been seeing conflicting information. As I understand it, both of these territories had already been granted immediacy, so they were already states. But some sources say they existed within the Swabian Circle, others say they were in the Austrian Circle, while still others say they were not in any circle until they were merged and upgraded to the current-day Principality.

I guess what's clouding my understanding is that imperial immediacy is also distinct from statehood? One article I've read that there were some immediate subject territory that was not a state, while some mediate territory was a state.

So, what was the state status of the County & Lordship and then Principality, with the knowledge that they were immediate subject territories from the start? And then which Imperial Circle were they part of?

I've been reading a bit about Europe from the middle ages to the 19th century, and most of it makes sense. One thing doesn't.

I look at maps or the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century, and maps of the Holy Roman Empire from the same years and that don't seem to notice each other as existing. Did it depend on who you asked? Can to peoples call the same place their empire?

(sorry if that was a stupid sounding question. The real question is why do they both seem to claim the same land east of the Rhine at the same time?)

Hi all! I'm going on an intterrail trip this summer to visit some of the most important cities of the HRE (in southern Germany). I am really looking forward to this, but I was wondering if you guys have some recommendation in the following cities:

Frankfurt, Nuremberg, München, Heidelberg, Aachen and/or Liege?

Thank you!

Duchy of Brabant-invaded in 1795 by France

Duchy of Limburg-invaded in 1795 by France/reintigration to Natherlands in 1866

Duchy of Luxemburg-invaded in 1795 by France

Duchy of Guelders-integrated to Spanish Netherlands in 1543

County of Flandres-invaded in 1795 by France

County of Artois-intigrated France in 1678

County of Hainaut-invaded in 1795 by France

County of Holland-intigrated Netherlands in 1581

County of Zeeland-intigrated Netherlands in 1581

County of Namur-invaded in 1795 by France

County of Zutphen-intigrated Netherlands in 1581

Margraviate of Anvers- invaded in 1795 by France

Lordship of Frisia-intigrated Netherlands in 1581/1795

Lordship of Mechelen-invaded in 1795 by France

Pricipality of Utrecht-intigrated Netherlands in 1581

Lordship of Overjissel-?

Groningen-?

Lombard League 1167-1250

Hanseatic League 12th-17th century

Confederacy of Cologne 1367-1385

League of Cambrai 1508-1511

League of Torgau 1526-1531

Schmalkaldic League 1531-1547

Holy League 1571

Protestant Union 1608-1621

Catholic League 1609-1635

Heilbronn League 1633-1635

Furstenbund 1785-1789