Talk:Conrad III of Germany

Untitled

So far as I can tell from the relatively poor reference books I have in my office (I concentrate on late antiquity and early medieval - I get to the Crusades in my survey classes the way most modern historians get to World War II) Conrad III was king of Rome, but never emperor. I can't find any references to a papal coronation. That could easily be just my books. On the other hand, there's now some content and a more accurate succession. Conrad III was not the husband of Judith of Bavaria, nor was Frederick I Barbarossa his son. Lineal descent mattered for VERY LITTLE in Europe before the 11th century in France and the 12th century everywhere else, which is why HJ's obsession with genealogy is deceiving as well as annoying. MichaelTinkler

---

Absolutely right: he was elected king of the Romans at Coblenz on 7 March 1138 and crowned as such at Aachen six days later. He was issuing grants as "Conrad, by the grace of God, King of the Romans" as late as 1150, two years before his death (see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1150conrad-corvey.html) - an interesting illustration that he couldn't get away with just adopting the Imperial style unilaterally. I'm going to move him to "Conrad III, king of the Romans" unless anyone has a better suggestion, because there's also a Conrad III of Burgundy. User:David Parker

sounds fine to me. I thought I was seeing things -- I found references in two narrative histories to Conrad as 'the emperor', but these were certainly not to be trusted. When, out of idle curioisity, is are the Conrads of Burgundy?

---

Conrad III does appear in a lot of lists as emperor, but they're using it de facto: The other Conrad III appears to be Germany's Conrad II in his capacity of duke (though I can't find a duke Conrad II). Generally, though, I think a territory or equivalent title should always be attached unless rulers have a unique personal surname and ruled different areas of equal status (I think we'll need to have a Canute the Great, to distinguish him from the less great Canutes, though he could be Canute I, counting Harthacanute as Canute II). User:David Parker

My two cents: My Encyclopedia Britannica article on the crusades refers to him as "Emperor" Conrad III (I assume they are referring to the Holy Roman Empire). If nothing else, wouldn't that mean people are more likely to use that designation when looking him up here (as I did)? alacarte (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

King?

Is the title of king correct? The Holy Roman Empire was started in 846, kind of, but the leader was referred to as the emperor starting with Charlemagne, and continued until the Empire's dissolution in 1806 by Napoleon. I'm not a history buff, but I didn't think there was ever a King of Germany. In addition, there was no state called "Germany" until 1871 when Bismarck founded the German Empire at Versailles. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Clarkefreak ∞ 00:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

HRE started in 800, not 846, with Charlemagne's coronation. In 918, Conrad of East Francia died, and his rival, Henry of Saxony, was made East Frankish King, but he changed the title to "King of the Germans". The title remained as the title Emperors took after being elected but before being crowned Emperor, and they kept after coronation. -Alex 12.220.157.93 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He did not change the title. But he was the first Saxon king of East Francia which was called "regnum teutonicorum" since the 11th century. The Holy Roman Empire started with Otto I's coronation to emperor 962. The kingdom of Germany, if you wanna call it like that, was its basic kingdom.--MacX85 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

\

Germany?

There are many, many references in Wikipedia about Kings of Germany. Wrong! That place we now call Germany did not come into being until 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. With respect to Conrad we need to know of what he was king. He was not a King of Germany. He became king in an area known as the Holy Roman Empire. I just read Clarkefreak's entry above...You are correct. This error is rife throughout the Hohenstaufen articles. There have never been any "Kings of Germany" 76.14.72.182 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Techincally, this is correct - the correct term for the Kings of Germany during the Middle Ages was King of the Romans. However, modern conventions have allowed for the term King of Germany to be used instead of King of the Romans, as the monarch so described generally ruled the area that was indeed referred to as Germany in the middle ages (although as noted, Germany was part of the Holy Roman Empire), and because Rome was for many of the German monarchs not a city that they were actually in control of. If you are going to be picky about such things, why stop with the Kings of Germany? The Holy Roman Empire was never called such during the middle ages; it was the Roman Empire to contemporaries. Same with the Byzantine Empire. These are just modern lables for convenience. Oatley2112 (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well TECHNICALLY this is not correct. There was a kingdom of Germany within the Holy Roman Empire and Conrad was its king. But not only this... he was also king of Italy, and king of Burgundy, and future Roman emperor. Sooo his title was King of the Romans. This makes sense when you look at the emperor's titles from Maximillian I. onwards. He styles himself as Emperor of the Romans and king in Germany while his heir is the "King of the Romans" again.--MacX85 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)