Post originally by Oliver at 2005-02-25 07:42:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

Steve S. wrote:
-------------------------------
He's right!

Quoting the wikipedia article you cited:
"The precise term Holy Roman Empire
dates from 1254."
This puts the name 34 years after
the ArM setting.

You'll note that he *USED* the name to
refer to the contemporaneous empire,
and only footnoted the trivial fact that
the name was an anachronism.
---------------------------------
There's still a problem with the argument though. While the specific title Sacrum Romanum Imperium dates from the interregnum, it only spelled out (because done by various competitors in order to spell out their claim to the empire) what was considered obvious before. The Empire WAS Holy, because the emperor had been the secular representative of God -and indeed, already Frederic I. called it Sacrum Imperium. And it WAS Roman, as the Emperor, crowned in Rome, was seen as the successor of the Roman emperors. So the Holy Roman Empire did exist before 1254, but no one considered it necessary to spell it out as such. It was only when authority dwindled that people had to write down explicitly what previously was implicitly understood. So, the actual comment that there was no "Holy Roman Empire" at the time is inaccurate. People just didn't feel like it had to be labelled in full, since such was clear for everyone to see.

Nitpicking, maybe, but I think important to appreciate the frame of mind of the people of the time.