One possibility would be the formation of the Holy Roman Empire (which was unfortunately neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire).
It was part of (and to a large extent was) the Holy Roman Empire, of which it was sometimes said that it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. However, the German states were not under foreign rule.
"The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor An Empire," Voltaire. It began as an Empire under Charlemagne. When his 3 grandsons divided his empire, it became something like NATO. Like NATO it became a mutual defense pact where some parts would send troops for the common good and some nations would not. Finally Napoleon ended it.
Basically the name "Holy Roman Empire" is a misnomer because it was none of those things. The Pope hated the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't Roman (it was German), nor was it an empire.
Hitler believed that Austria was part of Greater Germany, inasmuch they shared a common language and were also somewhat the remainder of the former Holy Roman Empire (which was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire). He was also born in the Austrian Empire which may have added to his megalomania.
The ruler of the Holy Roman Empire was Henry I, but he didn't last for long so it's considered that his son, Otto I to be the emperor since he lasted very long, and being the greatest of the empores. by the way the Holy Roman empire is NOT Roman nor holy nor an empire it was a saxon empire, because Otto I was the greatest of all saxon emporers
First of all, despite its name, Holy Roman Empire was not holy, nor Roman, and it wasn't an empire. Rather, it was a loose collection of German states like Prussia, Bavaria, and Hesse. And these states were united into the German Empire in 1871.
the empire state building was built neither in gothic nor in roman style. it was built in the art deco style.
No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.No, neither Nero nor any other Roman emperor was "democratic". The principate was an authoritarian institution.
No. He was probably of roman origin, as his parents spoke roman, neither macedonian nor dardanian, nor illyrian.
an agglomeration is a group of collectively weak and desperate elements. the holy roman empire was a group of dutchies or masses of lands ruled by princes who didn't get much money from the king so didn't really have to listen to him. so it wasn;t really an empire. rarely would the king have control of rome or anywhere on Italy it wasnt until late in the empire that it straddled the alps. it was rather holy seeing that its kings tried in vein to united western Europe under Christianity but the fact that they would slaughter those who did not accept their religion or the king as their king, charlamagne is said to have killed 3500 people in one day for not conforming, these kind of actions are not so holy.
the Roman Empire influenced every part of Scotland during the period, however the occupation was neither complete nor continuous.
The Roman Republic was neither authoritarian nor democratic. It was oligarchic.
By early modern times, as the French philosopher Voltaire later observed, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Instead, by the seventeenth century it had become a patchwork of several hundred small, separate states. In theory, these states were ruled by the Holy Roman emperor, who was chosen by seven leading German princes called electors. In practice, the emperor had little power over the many rival princes. This power vacuum contributed to the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War. Religion further divided the German states. The north had become largely Protestant, while the south remained Catholic.
The "Holy Roman Emperors" were never powerful. The Pope decided to declare Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse, Carolus Magnus) emperor and put a crown on his head, possibly against Charles's desire. His power was because he was king of the Franks, a german tribe ruling what is now France and parts of Germany and the Netherlands. His successors carried the title Roman Emperor but never had the powers of the old Roman emperors. And for the whole period they were even influential they disputed their powers over Europe with the popes. Usually the popes had more power. Within the so-called empire other rulers had the real political and military power. The last Holy Roman Emperor became emperor of Austria when Napoleon declared the title ended saying the empire was neither holy, roman nor an empire.
Neither Roman nor Celtic women usually got involved in fights.
ADMYAMAMOTO:The Prussian Empire ___ Joncey:There has never been a country called the "Prussian Empire". * Germany lost territory in 1918-1919 and more territory in 1945. Modern Germany is about 64% of its size before World War 1. * From 1815-1966 there was a loose group of German states called the German Conferation. (It included some non-German areas and did not include all German areas). * Before 1806 there was the Holy Roman Empire - neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire - but it is often regarded as the forerunner of Germany. ADMYAMAMOTO: The question is what it was called not how large it used to be. Before it was named Germany the area within the Holy Roman Empire was the region of Prussia. When Rome collapsed Prussia expanded into other regions and became an empire, besides those states were combined into a country named Prussia. ___ Somebody is confusing a computer or video game with history.
According to the Holy Bible, Christ neither married nor fathered a child.
Good question, because according to Voltaire it was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire. I'll start with the easiest. It got to be called an empire because after the partition of Charlemagnes empire, there could still be only one emperor, not three. Eligible for the title were his sons and their successors: the king of Germany, the king of France and the King of Lotharingia. Eventually the kingdom of Lotharingia was divided between the other two, and after a number of elections "won" by the king of Germany, the king of France was not even considered. I don't know if this was ever formalized, tbh. The title of emperor is therefore a continuation of Charlemagnes imperial title. In reality, particularly later on, the "empire" was more of a collection of (nearly) independent principalities, duchies, counties. The term Roman goes even further back. Both medieval European empires, Byzantium en the Holy Roman Empire, claimed to be the rightful continuation of the Roman Empire. Adding in the name Roman stresses that claim. Iirc, this was legitimized in the coronation of Charlemagne by the pope. Note that this was not just a matter of prestige. Being accepted as the successor to the Roman emperors gave a de jure claim to overlordship over all territories belonging to the Roman Empire, so from England to Armenia. Louis XIV warned his successor on his death bed against the aspirations of the Holy Roman Emperor. This is almost 1000 years later! Holy stems from the claim to be the protector of the faith (Catholicism), and might have been a rightful claim when first used. However, by the 12th century it became clear in the Investiture Controversy that the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire were at least as much rivals as they were allies. A few centuries later, a large part of the empire wasn't even catholic anymore. So far for that claim. As for Voltaire's claim: he was probably on the spot. From the point of view of a French catholic the empire most certainly was not holy (protestantism was by now the dominant religion in many German states), it was German, not Roman, and not an empire but a loose collection of states.
Neither, then nor; eg neither Jack nor John can ski.
Hathor was neither Roman nor Greek. Hathor was an Egyptian deity. She was closely associated with motherhood and childbirth.
Probably Empira. Lol Empire does not have a gender - it is neither masculine nor feminine. Emperor, however, has a feminine alternative - Empress.
The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. Various dates are given for its foundation. The date preferred by most German historians is the coronation of Otto I in 962. In a rather shadowy form this empire remained in existence till 1806. It was often said that it was 'neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire'.The Second Reich was the united Germany created by Bismarck and Prussia in 1871. This lasted up until the end of the First World War and the fall of the last German Kaiser, hence Hitlers idea for a 1000-year 'Third Reich'.AnswerI believe that the first Reich refers to the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in the 9th century was Charles the Great. The Second Reich was the unification of Germany under the Prussian Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1870. Of course, we all know what the Third Reich was. AnswerThe First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. There is little agreement as to when it was founded. Most German historians date the foundation from the coronation of Otto I in 962. That 'empire' had a continuous existence till 1806. The Second Reich was created by Bismarck in 1871 and lasted till 1918.