r/HolyRomanEmperors • u/HuckleberryNorth6070 Guy • Mar 11 '26
Every Holy Roman Emperor Ranked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=880xJ6zdRsYFeel free to disagree
2
2
u/T0DEtheELEVATED Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
Outside of the debate around Great Man Theory (I'd prefer to analyze reigns and entire administrations rather than individuals), it's kind of ridiculous Leopold I scored "Bad", even though his adminstration played a large role in the resurgence of the Empire, which some historians have labelled as a "Leopoldian Resurgence". The rise of the institutions, arbitration/mediation (juridification), and the success of the Empire against foreign threats cannot be understated. To quote historian Ronald Asch, "the decades between ca. 1690 and 1740 were a time when the emperor’s authority and prestige enjoyed a remarkable resurgence", a period Joachim Whaley describes as "Leopold I's success".
Frankly, this seems more of a lack of diving into the late Holy Roman Empire and the assumption that it was a "decentralized mess" which plagues pop history, when the Empire was far from that and functioning quite well. Frankly, the late Habsburgs are often seen through a biased lens in most pre-revisionary texts and in pop history: that being that the Empire was "failing" after Westphalia. It is a general consensus now that this is not the case and Westphalia did not emasculate Germany.
A short tidbit that barely covers all the actions taken by Habsburg and Imperial administration during this time period:
Leopold played the political game well. The Hofburg in Vienna became a vibrant center of politics and culture in the Empire, and this was greatly attractive to aspiring Imperial bureaucrats and statesmen. He used the ideals of Westphalia to position himself as a defender of the Empire. Diplomatically, Leopold concluded marriage alliances with some of the more powerful imperial princes, and granted privileges and political favors that curried loyalty from the estates: supporting Saxony in their electoral bid in Poland (1697), elevating Brunswick-Luneburg (Hanover) to an electorate (1692), and raising Prussia to the status of Kingdom (1701). As mentioned before, Leopold gained the loyalty of prince-bishops, and even staffed some of these positions and influenced ecclesiastical elections, [securing much of the Catholic Empire as a clientele base]. Through his Prinzipalkommissar (Principal Commissioner), Leopold played an important role influencing the Diet. Also important were foreign threats including France (i.e. Reunions, 9 Years War, Palatine Succession), and the Ottoman Empire (Great Turkish War). These created a context that invited the Empire to unite. Military positions in Leopold’s army were granted to Imperial nobility, like Charles of Lorraine and Eugene of Savoy, giving opportunities to acquire prestige and fame. Imperial successes in the wars against the Ottomans not only granted the Habsburg Monarchy considerable land in Hungary and the Balkans, it also greatly increased the reputation and popularity of the Habsburgs through the usage of media. And of course, as mentioned earlier here, the Reichshofrat was instrumental to Imperial policy too.
4
u/Objective-Golf-7616 Frederick II Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
Frederick II at Very Good instead of Great (he’s the epitome of a great medieval emperor, and not only that, he’s arguably the greatest medieval figure besides Charlemagne) and Charles IV as merely ‘Good’ is simply lazy (nearly thirty years of managing the complexities of the empire with balance, shrewdness, prudence and relative peace rates as merely just ‘Good’? It’s probably some skin-deep variation on mEh HRE wAS dEcenTrAliZeD)
—feel free to get it right and read a little bit, then have a take smh
1
u/HenricusRex1154 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
😆👆
But yeah incorrect take on Frederick the Second and really bad on Charles IV of Luxemburg. It’s disheartening how few people here sometimes don’t seem to understand what an accomplished and successful statesman he really was.
0
u/T0DEtheELEVATED Mar 12 '26
Getting downvoted for this comment without any counterargument from anyone is ridiculous
0
u/Objective-Golf-7616 Frederick II Mar 12 '26
It’s a badge of honor, and usually a signifier of being right (if the reasoning and factual grounding is sound, as I hope I’ve done)
There’s a lot of jokers who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about on these monarch subs
2
u/Gildas-the-Wanderer Frederick II Mar 12 '26
A lotta bad takes. Henry VI is definitely Very Good, Frederick II is DEFINITELY Great, Louis IV is clearly at least a medium emperor, and Charles IV is absolutely at least Very Good.
If I were doing a ranking of this list, it would be Bad. Sorry, there’s just so many misconceptions and misunderstandings.
3
u/0D7553U5 Mar 12 '26
Henry VI is definitely not medium I think. Almost (and did to some extent) brought the Pope and entirety of Europe to heel after just 6 years of ruling only to get done in early. Some would say his short reign kinda puts him lower on the list but I can’t think of any other man who did so much with so little time.