Talk:Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed move (2006)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would propose moving this article to Regnum Italicum, which is the contemporary name for the medieval Italian kingdom limited to the north of the peninsula. It removes the need for the parenthesis. Srnec 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The parenthetic remark is the standard Wikipedia method for disambiguating common names used to refer to multiple subjects. Compromising other Wikipedia conventions, particularly WP:NC(CN), in order to eliminate parenthesis is a weak argument for a move. Designating this particular Kingdom of Italy as "the medieval one" with the (Medieval) disambiguation effectively specifies two things: 1) the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article is Kingdom of Italy. 2) there are other subjects whose most common name is Kingdom of Italy. Finally "Regnum Italicum" fails the google test by an order of magnitude.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,830 for "Regnum Italicum"
Results 1 - 10 of about 29,900 for "Kingdom of Italy" medieval.
I have no argument with changing Medieval to medieval. --Serge 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Forget Google; "Regnum Italicum" violates both WP:UE and WP:NOR. Just change Medieval to medieval. -  AjaxSmack  17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons cited. Lowercase "m" would be OK. --SigPig 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request failed. --Dijxtra 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Medieval) -> (medieval)... Done[edit]

Due to lack of controversy and straight-forwardness on the move of Kingdom of Italy (Medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval), I did the bold thing... --Serge 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Innacurate [sic][edit]

This page is ridiculously inaccurate. First, it contradicts itself regarding the beginning of this state, giving both 839 and 855 as start dates. But neither date works. The kingdom was founded in 568 by the Lombards when the began the conquest of Italy. The state was conquered by the Franks in 774, but otherwise it continued to exist for centuries and then nominally until the end of the HRE in 1806. The statement about an "independent state" is funny: it was always independent of everything but the imperial authority after the year 800, just like every other kingdom in Western Europe at the time. Italy was ruled as a distinct realm from 568 until the High Middle Ages, when the rise of the city-states broke the power of the feudal class and the kingdom ceased to exist as a real political unit, though the powers of the rex Italiae continued to be exercised and coronation were still held for the emperors-elect. In short, I don't know what this page is referring to. It covers a kingdom which is not really distinct from the Lombard one as if it were. Srnec 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are exaggerating the extent of inaccuracy, although I agree that there is some confusion regarding the dates of Louis' ascendency. You also seem to be completely ignoring Carolinian dominance of the northern Lombards after Charlemagne's conquest of Northern Italy. Yes, "it continued to exist for centuries" after Frankish conquest, as a province of Charlemagne's empire, and later as part of the HRE. After the Carolinian conquest it was no longer a Lombard kingdom, it became a Frankish one. How many articles are there in Wikipedia titled "Kingdom of Italy"? Four? Six? You are confusing the region of Italy with the succession of governments that ruled there. I have no idea what you mean by "it was always independent of everything but the imperial authority after the year 800, just like every other kingdom in Western Europe at the time"; what exactly is your argument? I thought you were saying that it was already independent before the dates given, yet with this statement you are saying that it wasn't. The west of what is now France and the Iberian Peninsula were not within the suzerainty of the HRE at the time, so your statement equally doesn't apply to those regions. The Italy referenced in this article is not the same territory as the modern state of Italy, so what "distinct realm" are you referring to? The extent of the Lombard Kingdom of Italy was not the same as the Carolinian Kingdom, or that of the Ostrogothic Kingdom that pre-existed the Lombards, or to the petty Lombard kingdoms in the south of the peninsula that co-existed with the subject of this article. The extent of the kingdom even changes within the course of events depicted in this article, so not even the material in contention is dealing with a "distinct realm".
This article is indeed inaccurate. It depicts an entity that in low middle ages and renaissance did never exist. I suggest to rewrite it from scratch, making clearer that if such entity ever existed it was only an official title helded by holy roman emperors, while actually italy experienced in this time mediaval comuni and dinastie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.29.220.191 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Italy we are concerned with here was a province of Lothar's empire; due to the tradition of partible inheritance the empire was subdivided after his death, with Italy going to Louis who was already installed there. Louis left no heirs, and as was the tendency in the early HRE the stronger of the other two gained control and used it as leverage to dominate most of Lothar's former dominion (a gross oversimplification, but I trust you get the point). On Lothar's death, the independent medieval Kingdom of Italy began, later to be reincorporated into the HRE but with new recognition as a separate principality instead of just an extension of the Emperor's demesne, as it would continue to be regarded until the reorganization of the Italian Peninsula as the modern Kingdom of Italy.
I think the date confusion is due to lack of clarity. Louis was already King of Italy (then a vassal state) in 839 before the death of Lothar (he wasn't crowned until 844, so take your pick on the date), but only after Lothar's death in 855 did the Kingdom of Italy (under Louis) become an autonomous entity, to be eventually reabsorbed by the HRE after Louis' death and years of contention for the crown with no recognizable legitimate successors.
This could use a rewrite. I think the dispute banner needs to be replaced with one demanding clarification. 12.22.250.4 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a kingdom of Italy from 476. Its existence was interrupted more than once before the Lombards succeeded in establishing a lasting kingdom in 568. That kingdom lasted until 1806 without interruption. That is why this article is confused. The Franks conquered the Lombards in 774, but the regnum Italicum continued to exist. Only with the innovations of Carolingian imperium does the Italian kingdom come to be seen as a state within a state, namely, the Empire. It remained a state within the Empire until 1806, though, like all countries, its geography was altered more than once during that long period. Just because Italy had closer ties to the countries beyond the Alps when its ruler ruled transalpine lands, it does not follow that Italy only "became" and "independent ... Kingdom" after Lothair's death. It was a separate kingdom and independent from the other regna of the Empire from 774 on. The Lombard, Frankish, and post-Frankish Italies are the same political entity. Srnec 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Lombardy[edit]

Is what this article, or atleast the Lombard info should be called. These are not "Kings of Italy", they're "Kings of the Lombards". Take for example Alboin, Britannica has him located at "Alboin (king of Lombardy)"[1]. This well researched map on the Historical states of Italy calls it the "Kingdom of Lombardy".[2] In the letters from Popes they were addressed as "Kings of Lombardy", as this source attests.[3] - Gennarous (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2008)[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move back to Kingdom of Italy (medieval). Cenarium Talk 13:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of the Lombards → Regnum Italiae — This page is about the medieval entity known as the "Kingdom of Italy". Since "Kingdom of Italy (medieval)" is clumsy, "Regnum Italicum" is uncommon and rejected (see previous request), and the Italian and Spanish Wikis both use a Latin form in their titles, I propose moving the article to Regnum Italiae. User:Gennarous has been moving this page to inappropriate titles several times now and redirecting the other titles so that only an admin can revert him, thus necessitating this stupid requested move. If you don't know anything about the scholarly literature, please note that Chris Wickham uses "Kingdom of Italy" to refer to the Lombard kingdom in his Early Medieval Italy (the authoritative English general study of the period) and the Britannica reads "the regnum Langobardorum (“kingdom of the Lombards”) of the Lombard period was called the regnum Italiae (“kingdom of Italy”) from the 9th century onward". —Srnec (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This move requested was opened in order to prevent a full out edit war between myself and User:Gennarous, who moved the page from Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy, an innapropriate title because it is uncommonly used and it does not correspond to the scope of the article, and after I reverted him twice to The Kingdom of the Lombards. He redirected both the former article titles, including Regnum Italiae, which was my attempt at compromise, so that only an adminstrator could move them back. This necessitated a move request. I simply chose the previous title, but the original title is fine with me. The current title is wrong in form (per MoS) and in fact (the article is not about the Kingdom of the Lombards only). When an admin finally closes this, s/he should move the article to "Kingdom of Italy (medieval)" or to the requested domain in the unlikely event that the move request passes. Keeping the article here is not acceptable and does not have consensus. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose move it back to the previously decided title, Kingdom of Italy (medieval). I find no problem with the arguments from 2006. 70.55.85.39 (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Kingdom of Italy (medieval). Kingdom of the Lombards is too narrow a title. And while I certainly appreciate a good Latin name, I think the English title works well in this instance. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (and Kafka is correct; this article has much wider scope than the Kingdom of the Lombards; Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is about right). There are two problems with the proposal: it's not English, and it's ambiguous (it would be valid in discussing Vergil and the Saturnian Age (it's from Aeneid 4.106 or 275), the Ostrogoths, or the 1860-1946 Kingdom of Italy). Either would be fatal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Kafka is correct, that was my rationale for the move. I don't care where this gets moved to, though I don't see a big problem with the Latin (why does the Italian Wiki use it?). We Ostrogothic Kingdom, Kingdom of the Lombards, and the later Italian kingdoms (Napoleonic, Risorgimento), but we don't have a name for the Lombardo-Frankish entity that lasted from the eighth century to the end of the Middle Ages and probably in theory until the Peace of Westphalia. "Kingdom of Italy (medieval)" is less ambiguous than "Regnum Italiae" (though in practice probably not). I just think it is clumsy and weird. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't set Italian Wiki policy; but Latin will be trivially intelligible to Italians where it is not to anglophones. We should avoid it, unless English has adopted the phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. this is not the Italian language wikipedia
  2. English is not a romance language
  3. Latin is not taught as a subject in English-language highschools in the English-speaking world anymore, for the most part
  4. Latin is a dead language
  5. This is the English Wikipedia
  6. Roma is spelt Rome, Torino is spelt Turin, etc. in English, since this is neither the Latin nor the Italian Wikipedia.
74.15.104.182 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not against using a Latin term, as long as an Emglish term does not exist or is too obscure. This is hardly the case here. Both "Kingdom of Italy" and "Kingdom of the Lombards" seem more widely used. Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Kingdom of Italy (medieval). The article in question refers not just to the kingdom of the Lombards, but also to the Kingdom of Italy which existed for another thousand years AFTER the Lombards were gone. Kingdom of Italy (medieval) works fine, and can apply to both kingdoms, while Lombard only refers to one.Rcduggan (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert. Although I appreciate Srnec's work and creativity, and although I like Regnum Italiae, I have to agree that reverting to Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is the best name for this article in terms of balancing the various WP naming conventions (neutrality, common name, use English, unambiguous, etc.). Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

It may be worth dividing this article into the Lombard kingdom and Kingdom of Italy (medieval). The Carolingian kingdom had a separate, if usually nominal, existence from the Lombard state (if that's the right word). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with that is that the distinction is arbitrary. Even in the late Middle Ages the crown the emperors used as kings of Italy was the Iron Crown and Charlemagne adopted, initially, the Lombard title. We do need a separate article for the Lombard kingdom, but simply dividing it off of this article seems unwise. Better to keep a short section with a main article hatnote. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not importantly arbitrary. The Lombard crown was united with the Frankish/Imperial crown during the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis, the Italian crown was split off afterwards. The divide between them must be in that period. But writing a separate article and making this section into a summary will get us much the same place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pepin? Bernard? Kings of the Lombards or of Italy? Srnec (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I may have oversimplified. But did they wear the Iron Crown? Did they govern by Lombard law? If not, why not call them Kings of Italy, as we do? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that any dividing line between Lombard/medieval is arbitrary and therefore I am opposed to separating them completely, but subarticles are fine. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources for calling the Lombard kingdom a "Kingdom of Italy"[edit]

Giovanni Tabacco (1989), The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy, Chris Wickham (1990), Early Medieval Italy, and Jan Hallenbeck (1982), Pavia and Rome, call the Lombard kingdom a "Kingdom of Italy". Srnec (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Kingdom of Italy" is widely employed by historians but never existed. The only historical name was "Kingdom of Lombards" --Little bishop (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Italy[edit]

Was the Kingdom of Sicily and/or Naples considered to be legally outside the Kingdom of Italy and/or the Holy Roman Empire, even when the Kings of Sicily and/or Naples were also Holy Roman Emperors (e.g., Frederick II, Charles V)? --Jfruh (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was, as seen by the use of the double titulature King of Sicily and Italy by Frederick II. The kingdom of Sicily was also not administrated within the Empire - there may have been exceptions for the parts that recognized Carolingian suzerainety at some point (Capua, Benevento and Salerno IIRC). 76.124.106.137 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (user Snapdragonfly on an ip)[reply]

Map -- should the southern areas be blue?[edit]

I'm not sure that the map (which appears to be in Italian) is really accurate. It's true that the area in blue was ruled by the Lombards; but my understanding is that the Duchies of Bevento and Spoleto -- the whole area south of of Rome-Ravenna corridor -- never acknowledged the overlordship of the Lombard kings in Pavia, and thus can't be considered part of the "Kingdom of Italy" discussed here. Am I wrong? --Jfruh (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I'm not completely certain of the precise status of those duchies. Even if they were, I think it's still a bad map, since I'd say that the "Medieval Kingdom of Italy" applies much more to the post-Frankish period than it does to the Lombard Kingdom. A map depicting its extent in the High Middle Ages would seem much more sensible to me. john k (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent moves[edit]

This article appears to be the victim of an ongoing move war. The above requested move discussions show a preference for the disambiguator (medieval), but those discussions are old and consensus can change. Still, it seems to me that Kingdom of Italy (medieval) is the most stable title for this article, and it should probably remain at that title until a consensus can be reached for moving to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) or some other title.

Move history
  • 05:33, 3 August 2013 Srnec (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) over redirect (the kingdom survived into the modern era)
  • 08:35, 2 August 2013 Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (imperial) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval) over redirect (The term "medieval" is better because when Italy was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire it lost "de facto" its independence (during the Franks) and after the year 1000 it was already divided in s)
  • 01:57, 5 July 2013 Srnec (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (imperial) (actual scope: see the great Spanish article)
  • 16:59, 10 July 2012 Cuchullain (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per move request at Talk:Kingdom of Italy)
  • 08:46, 28 June 2012 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect (Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=498732719#movereq-Kingdom_of_Italy)&wpMovetalk=1)
  • 03:17, 20 February 2009 Gaugan (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to 'ħ(split)A(split)G(split)G(split)E(split)R? (edit summary removed)
  • 02:45, 20 February 2009 Giovanni Rossi (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to 'ħ(split)A(split)G(split)G(split)E(split) R? (edit summary removed)
  • 05:01, 5 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Italy (medieval)(redirects) (get this clutter out from under incoming move)
  • 16:20, 4 July 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Lombards Kingdom
  • 06:38, 9 June 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy over redirect
  • 17:30, 8 June 2008 Gennarous (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy (medieval) to Kingdom of Lombardy
  • 07:17, 2 March 2007 Domino theory (talk | contribs) moved page Kingdom of Italy to Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)

Please feel free to open a move request to discuss. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, yet again[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire). While this name doesn't appear to be perfect, there appears to be consensus that this is at least a better name, and no name even better has been suggested. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Italy (imperial) → Kingdom of Italy (medieval) – I hate to further continue the move war on this page, but Kingdom of Italy (medieval) has been the most stable title so far, and the result of the most recent RM discussion was to move back to Kingdom of Italy (medieval), before a user boldly moved it again without any discussion, against the recent consensus. At this point I think we're all tired of it. Can we move protect this page once discussion here closes? Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the bold editor, I oppose. I moved it because I wanted to lift material from the excellent Spanish article Reino de Italia, which actually begins the kingdom in 962 and distinguishes it from the kingdom of 774–962 and from the Lombard kingdom pre-774. The Italian Wiki has an article on the Lombard kingdom and on the Italian kingdom from 888 to 1024. Clearly no consensus exists among Wikipedians as to when or what this medieval Italian kingdom was. All of these dates mark major changes (774, 888, 962, 1024), but none marks the dissolution or creation of an Italian kingdom. Kingdoms were neither vaporised nor conjured up that easily in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the sake of consistency. If Germany deserves a fake kingdom to prove that it existed in the Middle Ages, So Italy deserves it too. Ceiscoran (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment has nothing to do with the move proposal. What's more, the user has never read any medieval history. Srnec (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From 781 to 963 the Kingdom of Italy (Medieval) was independent. Only since 963 it became part of the Holy Roman Empire because of the deposition of Adalbert of Italy made by Otto I of Germany after his previous invasion in 951. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happened in 781 or 963? Charlemagne became king of the Lombards in 774 and Otto was crowned with the same crown in 951. How was Italy "independent" under Charlemagne, but not under Otto the Great? Srnec (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to (Medieval) and (Imperial). Support to (Holy Roman Empire). --Enok (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Medieval" is clearly incorrect, since the kingdom lasted at least until 18th century. I don't like "imperial" either. --Enok (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still not perfect, but I'd prefer Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) over both the present and former title.--Cúchullain t/c 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be more or less fine with that, but "Holy Roman Empire" may come off somewhat anachronistic before Otto I's time. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Medieval Kingdom of Italy was the state that the Lombards founded in 568 (or 604), was conquered by the Franks in 774, and which collapsed around 950. After that, various magnates claimed the title of "king of Italy". But these pretensions are less mainstream history, more an aspect of royalty watching and genealogy. It doesn't appear that there is any source that supports the view of the kingdom taken in this article, i.e. that it was founded in 800 and dissolved in 1806. NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing "collapsed around 950". What "various magnates" are you referring to? I can think of one (Arduin). The article should not imply that Italy was formed in 800 (it wasn't).
    • Maybe we should split the topic into the Frankish kingdom of Italy (774–951) and Imperial Italy (962–1806). (We already have Kingdom of the Lombards, which I would never have split off from Lombards as it stands. It tell us almost nothing about the kingdom.) Srnec (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My source is The Oxford Illustrated History of Italy: "the break-up of the Kingdom of Italy, which the Carolingians inherited from their Lombard predecessors....By 950 the whole of Italy, north and south, was characterized by fragmentation of power into units of different sizes" (p. 42). In a discussion of 12th century politics, the book refers to "the former Kingdom of Italy" (p. 48). In short, the claim that the kingdom continued to exist under the Holy Roman Empire might be true in some limited sense, but it is not a part of mainstream historical accounts. We could have an article entitled Kingdom of Italy (medieval), which would cover 568 to 962. This would be followed up by Italy and the Holy Roman Empire, which would cover 962 to 1806. The "various magnates" I was referring to are the Habsburgs and others who are said, at least on Wikipedia, to have been kings of Italy after 962. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) has a long list of Ferdinand III's titles, but doesn't mention Italy. So it seems that the title had been dropped by that time, even as an imperial decoration. NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock activity - note to admin closing, comments from user under a community ban should be disregarded or removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split?: Should we consider splitting the article (medieval before 962 and imperial after 962)? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The year 962 is certainly a more logical start date for this article than 800 is. But how was Italy more "imperial" in 962-1806 than in other periods? Cambridge uses the phrase "Imperial Italy" to refer to Justinian's rule. The phrase was also a Fascist slogan. Are we still going with "kingdom"? I checked the Golden Bull of 1356, which was the empire's organic act. I don't see any indication the Italy had "kingdom" status at that time. NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) per Cuchullain and IP. This entity was around for way too long to simply call medieval, but neither is "imperial" a particularly good disambiguator. If it was a constituent of the HRE for the entirety of its existence, this seems like the best option. A split might also be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bohemia[edit]

In the Middle Ages, the HRE was divided into three component kingdoms. Italy and Arles belonged to the elected king of Germany by right, as did the imperium, which was exercised after a papal coronation. Bohemia was a separate electoral crown entirely, a vassal of the king/emperor of Germany. It was not one of the basic divisions of the empire but a state within it, like Saxony, Bavaria or Milan. It should not be lumped in with the Italy, Germany and Arles/Burgundy. And in fact, after 1 January 1806 the Empire had two other kingdoms within it (Bavaria and Württemberg) on a par with Bohemia, although this only lasted six months. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kingdom of Bohemia was not like Electorate of Saxony, Electorate of Bavaria or Milan. Saxony and Bavaria were electorates of Kingdom of Germany and Milan was a part of Kingdom of Italy. Kingdom of Bohemia was neither a part of Kingdom of Germany, nor Italy, nor Burgundy. Using "vassal" is completely incorrect and POV in this context and as Italy and Arles belonged to the elected king of Germany by right, and Bohemia was a separate electoral crown entirely, Bohemia is more likely to stand as a basic division unit of the Empire with Germany, than Italy and Burgundy theoretically would, as the latter two didin't even have their own kings. What are basic division units of the Holy Roman Empire is not up to someone editor's will. It is very clear that the Empire had 4 kingdoms for most of its history even though Italy and Burgundy were a subject to the Kingdom of Germany. Terms like "not be lumped" are POV and removing one of four kingdoms of the empire because of its higher autonomy is nonsense.--Der Golem (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For Bohemia as a vassal, see Jaroslav Pánek's contribution to The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806: A European Perspective. For the medieval theory of the three "blocks of territories" (Germany, Italy and Burgundy), see Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, p. 20. The editor who is trying to impose his will here is you. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you just pick out the sources that support your version. Good luck.--Der Golem (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You, on the other hand, haven't picked out any sources, so Srnec seems to have the advantage. john k (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I removed the infobox because it was rife with errors:

  1. "Associated state" is both anachronistic and incorrect. It was part of the Empire.
  2. The terminal dates 781 and 1556 are completely made up. There was a great deal of continuity between the kingdom before and after the Frankish conquest of 774, likewise a large part of Italy continued within the Empire well past 1556.
  3. Pavia was the capital at least until the palace was sacked in 1024.
  4. "Italics" is not a demonym of anything.
  5. There were no thalers in 781–1014, so I have no idea why that's there.

So I removed it. It is not worth fixing. This was not a "state" in the conventional sense for most of its life. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of infobox is called "subdivision", not as "associated state", it's quite helpful, because it helps with orientation, refers to government, successor and predecessor states, historical eras and events etc., so stop vandalize the article. Dragovit (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dragovit here. It is not helpful to have such a long article with no infobox and no navigation tools to predecessor and successor states. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's not helpful is a box trying to encapsulate a difficult concept like this. The Kingdom of Italy in question simply wasn't a state in 1801 in any sense. The term "Crown land of Holy Roman Empire" is made-up. Infoboxes attract this sort of crap. Nobody speaks of a Kingdom of Italy much past the time of Dante. It's "imperial Italy" in the early modern era. The very title of the article is a compromise. Really we should probably have separate sub-articles on the Italian kingdom from 855 until 961 and on modern imperial Italy after the Italian Wars. Srnec (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the infobox does not contain information that Kingdom of Italy was the "state" as you say. That's just your assumption. Infoboxes are regularly used for states, provinces, regions, colonies, etc., not just for sovereign states. The existence of the Kingdom of Italy was changeable, may not have been defined as "Crown land", but anyway it was kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire, so the infobox belongs here. Of course, the name of infobox is "subdivision" and is intended for such cases. It's alright and I also added status there, so it should be clear. If you find some information there untrue, it is possible to edit it in the infobox, not to remove the whole infobox. Dragovit (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Predecessor and successor state make no sense unless it's a state. So that's Dimadick's assumption. I don't want to edit the infobox. I think it's ugly, unhelpful and distracting. I think it's a magnet for bad information.
@Barjimoa: Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, the infobox is arbitrary. I am pretty confident that the sub-entity "Kingdom of Italy" appeared under Charlemagne around 781 following his conquest of the Lombards, was its own entity from 855 and stopped existing when it was integrated in the HRE in a process that went on from Otto I (961) to Henri II (1014). The title "King of Italy" remained in reference to the Italian territories of the empire but like you say I'm not aware of sources mentioning a kingdom of Italy in, say, 1400. Not even Dante and Petrarch mention a Kingdom of Italy, they are referring to the old Roman concept of Italy. It's weird but there was a title King of Italy (used by the HREmperor when crowned as such, until the times of Charles V) without a Kingdom of Italy. So, in essence, this infobox leads the reader to wrong assumptions. Namely it makes one think that Otto I founded the Kingdom of Italy and that it was abolished in 1801. That looks like the period of Italian states into the HRE, not the Kingdom of Italy. Barjimoa (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all the reason why I wrote the status to the infobox. It's the way to properly inform the readers correctly, so I tried to include these information there, but the user Srnec has removed the status with it and only left the title "Kingdom of Holy Roman Empire", I don't know why, that is quite illogical. It seems hat he is looking for reasons to challenge the infobox, I suspect. Dragovit (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think his point is that the infobox creates confusion and now that I see it it's true for me too. Right now it says that the title King of Italy was used until 1801. I'm not aware of such use in the 1700s or 1600s. That looks like a factual error, the article King of Italy has the list of people who used the title King of Italy or similia. And what would be the best starting point? 781 or 855? or Otto? It is probably indeed better to not have an infobox, like for Kingdom of Germany and Kingdom of Burgundy. We would also be consistent and have an equal standard for the "kingdoms" of the HRE. Barjimoa (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dragovit, you need to use sources to edit Wikipedia. What source calls the kingdom of Italy a "crown land"? Likewise, you added the note: "Independent Kingdom (855–961) / Kingdom of Holy Roman Empire (961–1556) / Imperial claims within using the title King of Italy (1556–1801)". But where does this come from? The kingdom of Italy was not created in 855. See Pippin of Italy, Bernard of Italy and Lothair I. Also, the kings of Italy were generally emperors from 855 until 924. Nor am I aware of the title King of Italy in use in the early modern period. Nor were they mere "imperial claims". Parts of northern Italy really were part of the Empire. This is the problem with infoboxes repeated over and over. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, it's just your opinion. The fact is that the Kingdom of Italy wasn't an ordinary integral part of the Holy Roman Empire, that was a extraordinary part of the empire because the emperors had to be crowned extra in Pavia, so the infobox there is ok. The infoboxes are not just for sovereign states, especially this infobox is called a "former subdivision" and is intended for such cases, such as regions, colonies, provinces etc., it's ok, this type of infobox is intended for this purpose. Someone created it for this purpose. What decides that an infobox is inappropriate in this article? Was Imperial Italy an integral part of the Holy Roman Empire? No, it wasn't because the kings were crowned extra in Pavia with the iron crown of Lombardy. At last, who designed kingdom as a "crown land", I do not know, it was someone before. Dragovit (talk) 8:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Empire of the Romans[edit]

The introduction refers to 'the so-called "Empire of the Romans" ', an entity which is undefined. There is no Wikipedia article with this title. Is what is meant here the entity implied by the coronation of Charlemagne as 'Emperor of the Romans' (also mentioned in the introduction)? Is this the 'Holy Roman Empire'? If not, how does it differ?Clivemacd (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire of the Romans" is a translation of imperium romanorum and is synonymous with "Roman Empire" and "Holy Roman Empire". The lead says "crown ... of the so-called 'Empire of the Romans'" after introducing Charlemagne's coronation as "Emperor of the Romans". Is it not clear that this is the same crown? I have reworded somewhat. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westphalia[edit]

In the long tradition of people attributing things to the Peace of Westphalia that it did not say, somebody last year sneaked in a claim that the Peace of Westphalia formally ended the existence of the Kingdom of Italy. This is not true in any sense. The Peace of Westphalia did not say anything about the Kingdom of Italy, and whatever Imperial rights existed in the "imperial" parts of Italy continued to exist in much the same way both before and after 1648. So please don't add that back in. john k (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@Barjimoa: You wrote: Otto not crowned in 855, 1648 was the end not 1801, South of Italy under Philip II has nothing to do with Italian kingdom etc. You are correct about Otto, wrong about 1648 (see the section immediately above) and wrong about Philip II, who was imperial vicar in (imperial) Italy. The Treaty of Lunéville (1801) confirmed the Treaty of Campo Formio (1797) by which the emperor had renounced his rights in Italy in favour of the Cisalpine Republic (see here). Srnec (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsburg Emperor had rights in Italy because the Habsburg-Lorraine family came to control Tuscany/Milan and other places since the wars of successions of the early 1700s, not the same thing as the Kingdom Italy part of the HRE. Philip II also was not King of Italy: the last person to have that title was Charles V and in his capacity as HRE. Philip II was duke of Milan, and Milan remained also a part of the HRE: in that sense he was a vicar of the Emperor, but limited to Milan cause the south was not part of the Kingdom of Italy and he never ruled over the rest of the Kingdom of (Northern) Italy. And I don't know if Milan was ever capital of the Kingdom of Italy. The capital was Pavia and then de facto Monza until the Peace of Venice when Emperor Frederick Barbarossa aknowledged the independence of Italian communes (including Monza, including Milan etc). Then there was no specific capital. Basically that infobox was full of mistakes.

For a correct end-date it's hard to pick one. The key thing is that the conquest of Otto I and his successors of the XI century put an end to the Kingdom of Italy created with Prum, absorbing it into the HRE. Then, what was left was the title "King of Italy" (already in use since 781 and even before as King of the Lombards). And for the end of that rule you can pick various dates: the peace of 1177, its confirmation in 1183, the Imperial reform between 15th and 16th century, the abdication of Charles V in 1555 etc Barjimoa (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have lookd it up, you were right about two points: 1648 didn't touch the Italian issue (my bad) and Imperial Italy (in the form of imperial fiefs) continued to exist into the modern period. Puglisi's work is the chief academic book dedicated to this subject. Indeed imperial influence increased in the early/late modern period in comparison to the high middle ages, in the sense that the Aulic council extended its jurisdiction to Italy in the 16th-17th centuries and the status of Imperial fiefs formed the legal basis for Austria to take over Tuscany, Lombardy, etc, when the local dynasties died out in the 17th-18th centuy. Barjimoa (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Italy_(Holy_Roman_Empire)&oldid=1207986012"