Also do you think it is possible that Philip could have ruled over the whole empire had the Habsburg’s not been split into the Spanish and Austrian Habsburg’s

O

Also tomorrow is a big day with the first person to officially hold the title coming soon being Otto the great, hopefully there can be some more debate about his placement as more is known about him and also because he is more interesting than some of the ones we have been ranking lately

The monument is a monument to the defeat of Napoleon at the battle of the nations (battle of Leipzig) as well as being a monument to Kaiser Wilhelm I and Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick Barbarossa. It was built in 1890-96 and was to be a moment and propaganda piece for monarchism, it is the 3rd largest monument in Germany and I find its statue of Fredrick Barbarossa interesting. Fredrick is depicted seated on his throne meanwhile Wilhelm is depicted on a horse

As you know I am doing a thing where the sub votes to rank every Holy Roman Emperor, I don’t know wether to go from Louis III-Otto when they come up or to include Conrad I and Henry I who are between the 2 of them but they are very disputed wether they really had the title Roman emperor, I wanted to ask people who were more knowledgeable than me on wether it should go Louis III then Otto, or should include Conrad and Henry?

You guys put Louis II in mediocre, I personally think he deserved decent but you guys didn’t

I would say Charles V, most of what he is famous for (ruling a practically world wide empire) is more because he was lucky to inherit it all rather than building it up, and while most the internal problems were not really his fault like Martin Luther but he did have significant financial problems due to his constant wars. Also while he was away fighting wars he left his brother in control who was much better politician who when he became emperor ran the empire better. Charles also presided over the sack of Rome which was brutal, made the HRE look bad, fuelled religious tensions and didn’t help the HRE at all in the Italian wars although he didn’t order it he didn’t do much to stop it. Although Charles may not be at fault for everything bad that happened during his reign I think he was a poor politician, not very proactive and irresponsible ruler who while looking impressive didn’t really help the HRE in the long run, what do you think?