The Holy Roman Empire by James Bryce

Wow, this is going to be a difficult blog entry for me. I've been in search of a great book about the Holy Roman Empire for quite a while. Much of my reading over the years has mentioned the HRE, but it's been difficult to find any comprehensive overview of the Empire itself.

Now I know why.

The Empire is really, really hard to define or describe. I had understood it to be, broadly speaking, the entity that survived the Roman Empire itself after its infamous decline and fall. That's not incorrect.

But I was really confused to see that the book began with a complete listing of emperors starting with Augustus in 27 BCE and continuing in a straight line through Francis II in 1806. The line of emperors (at least this book's definition) began in Rome until Constantine the Great moved the capital to Constantinople. The crowning of Charlemagne (pictured) in 800 AD effectively "stole" the emperorship from the Byzantines, re-establishing the line in Aachen, Germany, where it gradually faded away over the next 1000 years.

But what was the Holy Roman Empire? It evolved significantly over the years. A great flash of power and brilliance under Charlemagne, it faded dramatically over the centuries that followed. Further brief flashes occurred under Otto the Great, Charles V and a few others. Other than that, the Holy Romany Empire was essentially a phantom empire.

During most of the HRE's history, much of Europe yearned for the greatness of the original Roman Empire. That yearning, that desire to bask in the glow of the magic of real Rome, kept the idea of the Holy Roman Empire alive.

For most of its history the HRE had no real power, no real constituents, and a diminishing geographic territory. The Holy Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Emperor, were essentially an idea of greatness from the past of which Europe could not let go.

There was an understanding, an idea really, that the Emperor and the Pope ruled on parallel thrones, one ruling the temporal world, one ruling the spiritual. At times one had power over the other, but the roles could be reversed at any time, and they often did.

The Emperor and his court did sometimes play the role of a type of international court of law, a sort of court of last appeal for international disputes. He also (ideally, not always literally) served as a model of chivalry, a living example of how things used to be back in the good ol' days of the Roman Empire.

I've heard it said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. And now I believe that actually to be the case. It wanted to be all three. Much of Europe wanted it to be all three. But with the rise of national identity and national pride across Europe, the nations would not dilute their new power or prominence to fund, support and empower the international authority of the Holy Roman Empire or its emperor.

Yet they could not let it go.

The phantom of the Empire continued until 1806, when Napoleon developed his own dreams of a new Roman Empire. He did his best to absorb the remaining mirage of Roman prestige under his own authority.

Fascinating reading, nonetheless.