Trying tp explain HRE to co-workers

[The Yosemite Bear]

they weren't romans, they were French called themselves the Franks, ruled over same same section of france that some english kings later did, lasted a thousand years more or less, and moved into germany...

what else does one have to do to explain Charles the Great and his kingdom to fundy idjits?

besdies suckede to be Pippin, named after his grandfather, son ofthe first wife from Lombardy, during that year of fighting that they were married in....

[Blayne]

I would describe it as a loose confederation of sovereign of states headed by an elected Monarch and the more powerful and/or influencial states were the Electors who got to vote for who would be HRE when the previous one died. Traditionally the title was held by the head of the Hapsburgs dynasty and was a major reason for Austria's strength and influence throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.

The title of Holy Roman Emperor/Holy Roman Empire is only because Charlemagne was claiming as per tradition of many European Monarchs lineage/succession from the Roman Empire and was meant to cement legitimacy and enhance his majesty, due to the prevalence of Christianity the "Holy" was probably meant to invoke the Divine Right to rule.

Essentially when Charlemagne died his kingdom got split into what was to be known as France, Burgundy and "Germany" ie the HRE iirc.

Explaining history to those with neither knowledge nor a broader understanding of the forces at work is always a chore and akin to pulling teeth, I tutored a girl in my history of pre-Confederation Canada class and the hardest part has got to me the lack of a broad understanding of stuff like economics or politics.

[Thanas]

I would describe it as a loose confederation of sovereign of states headed by an elected Monarch and the more powerful and/or influencial states were the Electors who got to vote for who would be HRE when the previous one died. Traditionally the title was held by the head of the Hapsburgs dynasty and was a major reason for Austria's strength and influence throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.

Wrong. The main dynasties were the Ottones, Salians, Stauffer, Welfen and only then, after much squabbling, the Habsburger, who only mattered in the 16th and 17th century.

The title of Holy Roman Emperor/Holy Roman Empire is only because Charlemagne was claiming as per tradition of many European Monarchs lineage/succession from the Roman Empire and was meant to cement legitimacy and enhance his majesty, due to the prevalence of Christianity the "Holy" was probably meant to invoke the Divine Right to rule.

No, because the Holy Roman Emperor is a direct claim to be a direct successor to the Roman Emperors in the west, a claim somewhat legitimized by the marriage of Theophanu to Ottto II.

they weren't romans, they were French called themselves the Franks

They weren't french. They were a germanic tribe living in the area which can now be considered northern france and Belgium.

, ruled over same same section of france that some english kings later did, lasted a thousand years more or less, and moved into germany...

And they also did not move into Germany. You got your dynasties mixed up.

[Blayne]

Isn't the goal how to explain it to people who know virtually nothing about the history? Some details are lost and many inaccuracies pop up during the simplification process.

[Stark]

If he's trying to educate people (or claim to be knowledgable) why should you accept really incorrect facts as 'simplifications'?

I mean honestly there's a tolerable Wiki article. :v

A coffee table conversation is not the place for 900 years of history to be condensed and edited and made uninformative or misleading. That's how people get these wrong ideas about xyz historical business to start with.

[Blayne]

Ever been to a history class that lists "Italy" as a 16th century maritime nation? Are you trying to explain a list of facts they likely won't remember 5 minutes later or trying to get an semi accurate gist as to what the Holy Roman Empire was?

[Lord Revan]

Ever been to a history class that lists "Italy" as a 16th century maritime nation? Are you trying to explain a list of facts they likely won't remember 5 minutes later or trying to get an semi accurate gist as to what the Holy Roman Empire was?

wait what?!

Italy didn't even exist as a unified power until the 1860s, while there was no dout italian nations that could considered maritime nations in the 16th century like the venicians, calling Italy one would just plain wrong.

[Blayne]

It is plain wrong but as you say there are italian maritime states, but those are the sacrifices you have to make to get the broad picture of the material across. As the unification of italy is usually far outside the scope of a Quebec & Canada history class but since people have trouble understanding the concept of Italian explorers under French and Spanish Monarchs, it's a compromise teachers make to communicate the gist.

I personally focused on trying to get the mechanics of history across to the people I tutor, for example I prioritized making sure she understood mercantilism before proceeding to explaining the fur trade because one leads to the other; dates, people and events are less important than a conceptual understanding why the fur trade is important.

Which is why I suggested the above for the HRE, something accurate enough so they can understand it on a conceptual level and if they are still interested can go on their own to research it.

[Spoonist]

I feel sorry for the people you tutor in that case.
Giving them wrong data is not simplification - it will bite them in the ass later on.

[Blayne]

Do you have any reasoning to back that up? I'm not the one that says "Italy" existed in the 16th century, I recognize there is only so much a person is willing to accept and learn and strategically feel the best course of action is to focus on "why" things are they were rather than "who/what/when".

Without mercantalism there's no fur trade, no fur trade means no Canada. Without understanding that your just memorizing the book and not getting anything substantial out of it.

Or I guess we can just be insulting.

[Thanas]

Is it insulting to point out that you are teaching things that are factually wrong? Especially because saying "Italy did not exist back then, there were a lot of independent states, some of which were city states which traded a lot via the sea" should not be too much.

[xthetenth]

Many of the Italian city states had extensive maritime traditions and trade and because of this had many skilled navigators, so a lot of early explorers came from the Italian city states. I think that should cover it. One sentence isn't that much to ask.

If it's a list, what about listing "Italian city states" rather than "Italy"?

[Blayne]

I thought I clarified that I never said or taught that, only explaining that education in general does make such simplifications and I understand the reasoning behind some of them, even though in that particular case it is an oversimplification.

e: The reason why teachers would jump to that simplification is because most students would have either trouble understanding it or get distracted, the Risorgimento is outside the scope of such classes so its somewhat tangential.

The crack of "I feel sorry for the students you tutor" is what's kinda insulting (or at least not particularly fair) as there's very little its being based on, after all he's not the one being tutored.

Lets return to the subject on hand, whats our goal? It's to "explain the HRE to coworkers" as per the title, I do not know them and only have Bear's post to go by so I would take a cautious approach. I would assume they know something of modern states but may not know of Dynastic sovereignty; names of dynasties and powerful HRE families would maybe (I dunno I don't have them in front of me in which to cater the session to their needs) elicit a "huh?" and I'm guessing unless history is not their study entirely pointless trivia to them.

I would prioritize helping them understand the HRE as a "concept" over (how it worked, how it differed from other nations, etc) what I would classify as "trivia" for the average person. At the end your not probably trying to teach them its entire history, your trying to get them to understand what it was and "everything" is counterproductive.

For example using my class, my classmate couldn't understand why the Jesuits would go out and convert people, didn't understand what missions were or why the French would encourage it. Why is this? Because she doesn't know or understand the concept of "influence" and "security" in context to the actions of the Jesuits and other missionaries. If she doesn't understand the underlying reasons then she won't be able to answer it if the test asks the question in a different way.

[Norseman]

For example using my class, my classmate couldn't understand why the Jesuits would go out and convert people,

Wait, what? Missionary types going into the wilderness to convert the savage is so well known it's a trope. It's what missionary religious types do, I mean... if you know anything about Christianity it is that Christian churches send out missionaries.

didn't understand what missions were

Once more isn't the little place where the missionary tries to convert savages and to wear clothes also a stereotype? I mean don't they show tons of ads where some missionary type is sitting at their compound in blackest Africa and asking for more money for bibles and good works?

or why the French would encourage it. Why is this? Because she doesn't know or understand the concept of "influence" and "security" in context to the actions of the Jesuits and other missionaries. If she doesn't understand the underlying reasons then she won't be able to answer it if the test asks the question in a different way.

Now this part I can believe, but the first two points made me go "Wuh?"

[Blayne]

I didn't understand her confusion either, she didn't understand why there was, or how it was important the [policy] of having Jesuits and other missionaries go out west and work on converting Indians, and how it related to French designs on the region.

Although I point out that the French-Indian relationship was a lot more benign than other nation's policies, heck the Indians even called the French "Father" and had quite the bilateral relationship going. The French gave guns and other stuff and the Indians gave back fur, participated in trade which expanded the borders of New France and were auxiliaries in the wars. [the influence and security I mentioned]

I'm not the one, your not the one, who finds it confusing but people I tutor or otherwise talk to in my classes? "Huh?"

[Norseman]

No what I mean is... I understand confusion about trade, furs, muskets, politics, history etc. What I don't understand is why anyone would be confused about the concept of missionary types going into the wilderness, setting up missions, and trying to convert the heathen. I mean as I said there are ads on prime time TV asking you to donate money to that sort of thing *today*.

[Blayne]

I don't really have a good answer, I can only speculate that maybe there are mental barriers that contribute to a sort of dissonance about it. "How could we do that isn't it racist?" *Why* send them out, what point does it accomplish sort of deal maybe?

[Stark]

I've gotta say maybe they don't understand it because you're 'simplifying' it

Cause the Jesuits arent a complex subject with shadowy issues hard to grasp

Unless these people,have trouble understanding any motives at all in which case when they fail history it'll be for their own good

And man if you're tutoring people about a subject and changing the content based on what you think average people will retain

I don't think you understand the point of tutoring

[Thanas]

^What Stark said.

[Blayne]

I've gotta say maybe they don't understand it because you're 'simplifying' it

Cause the Jesuits arent a complex subject with shadowy issues hard to grasp

Unless these people,have trouble understanding any motives at all in which case when they fail history it'll be for their own good

And man if you're tutoring people about a subject and changing the content based on what you think average people will retain

I don't think you understand the point of tutoring

I don't think you've understood my post and leaping to some rather unsupported conclusions based on what seems to be rather uncharitable assumptions on your part.

I'm not getting into the details as to how I tutor people as it seems at this point there is a clear difference of opinion on how to teach history and it's just turning into a derail instead of a discussion on to how best explain the HRE to people who presumably don't know very much history.

[Thanas]

Admits he changes basic facts, then claims this is merely a difference in teaching styles.

No shit. One is called "teaching", the other is called "lying".

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also make Adoption easier and legally binding, thus eliminating the problems for Renly, and making things so that we don't have so many inbred Targarian wanna be's running around. That lesson should be explainable to just about all tof the nobels...

[Thanas]

wrong thread, bear.

[The Yosemite Bear]

shit, I ment in the Thrones thread...

[Blayne]

Admits he changes basic facts, then claims this is merely a difference in teaching styles.

No shit. One is called "teaching", the other is called "lying".

I have not changed basic facts regarding Canadian history, nor have I admitted to changing basic facts.

I gave what I felt was a nuanced argument, please I ask of you to not misunderstand my position.

Regarding the HRE there are things that I got wrong yes, but we had a bit of a tangent. However I'm not sure what you are referring to. You responded to two parts of my post so I am not entirely sure where my 'changing basic facts' comes from:

I would describe it as a loose confederation of sovereign of states headed by an elected Monarch and the more powerful and/or influencial states were the Electors who got to vote for who would be HRE when the previous one died. Traditionally the title was held by the head of the Hapsburgs dynasty and was a major reason for Austria's strength and influence throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.
******
Wrong. The main dynasties were the Ottones, Salians, Stauffer, Welfen and only then, after much squabbling, the Habsburger, who only mattered in the 16th and 17th century.

Here I consider the last sentence of mine is technically wrong in that I don't really give info as to when the Hapsburgs gained prominence but how is not mentioning the other HRE dynasties by name wrong and how does it help Bear's coworkers?

The title of Holy Roman Emperor/Holy Roman Empire is only because Charlemagne was claiming as per tradition of many European Monarchs lineage/succession from the Roman Empire and was meant to cement legitimacy and enhance his majesty, due to the prevalence of Christianity the "Holy" was probably meant to invoke the Divine Right to rule.

********
No, because the Holy Roman Emperor is a direct claim to be a direct successor to the Roman Emperors in the west, a claim somewhat legitimized by the marriage of Theophanu to Ottto II.

I am honestly really not sure what you are objecting to here. My post does not dispute or contract that the HRE claims direct succession to the Roman Emperor's of the West, my post was to illustrate that doing so was to provide a source of legitimacy for their right to rule.

The last sentence I concede was just theory as I didn't know the answer for sure, which is why I had "probably" in my sentence, I admit this may have been too casual an expression.

I apologize if I have given cause for misunderstanding and would like for us to try to resolve the point of contention.