Talk:Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor

Picture

• Edited in the picture. Martg76 01:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

I have expanded this article substantially, but there is much left to do. I could use help especially regarding Austira, Switzerland, the Italian wars, and his reign as Emperor. A great deal of what I've added was pulled (not verbatim) from wiki articles about other people. Laura1822 19:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And so, my question is: In the article on the Knight's Revolt, Franz von Sickingen is labeled as "The Last Knight." Could it be that you copied that into the article on Maximilian, labeling Maximilian also, here in this article, as "The Last Knight?" Just checking.T.Mc 07:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommcnabb (talk • contribs)

Emperor-Elect

Shouldn't Maximillian's page as well as the other pages about Holy Roman Emperor-Elects say Emperor-Elect in the title rather than emperor? After all, you were only truely a Holy Roman Emperor if you were coronated as such by the pope. Since Maximillian and his grandson's successors (his grandson was the last emperor who recieved papal coronation) be labeled as Name of person, Holy Roman Emperor-Elect rather than Name of person, Holy Roman Emperor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emperor001 (talk • contribs) (I forgot to sign in.)20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I've taken the opposite position on the "holy roman emperor" talk page. The list of emperors in that article currently labels all the post-1508 emperors as "emperor elect." To my way of thinking that is misleading because it implies that they weren't quite the emperor. But my understanding is that the Popes acquiesced in no longer insisting on crowning the emperors. So that the policy was changed as a practical matter.Eldred 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add that picture of his armour, which got shot four times with a crossbow? http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn00501nw.jpg

Holy Roman Emperor would always be incorrect. The empire had that notion, not the emperor.--MacX85 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A Question on the Manual Redirect

Why has the "for this see this page" thing at the top been changed from Maximilian in Mexico to Maximilian in Rome (a red link)?76.240.199.90 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When did he become Holy Roman Emperor?

The article says that Maximilian succeded his father and that his father died in 1493, yet it later says that Maximilian became Holy Roman Emperor in 1508? Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Maximilian I as King of Hungary?

The list of titles at the bottom of the page includes "King of Hungary", but according to the section "Tu felix Austria nube" the Hungarian kingship didn't pass into Habsburg hands until 1526. Likewise the article "List of rulers of Hungary" has Matthias Corvinus, Vladislaus II and Louis II as kings for the relevant period, and the article on the House of Habsburg also denies that they were kings of Hungary at the time. So is this a mistake, or was it like the British monarchy claiming to be kings of France for centuries? Proparoxytone (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)proparoxytone

Maximilian I seems to have been a pretender to the throne of Hungary and this source confirms it but I am not sure on which basis he claimed it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent 1488 imprisonment in Cranenburg House, Bruges

I see this from two sources, bruges and west flanders and nndb: "early in 1488 Maximilian, having entered Bruges, was detained there as a prisoner for nearly three months, and only set at liberty on the approach of his father with a large force. On his release he had promised he would maintain the treaty of Arras and withdraw from the Netherlands; but he delayed his departure for nearly a year and took part in a punitive campaign against his captors and their allies."

How is it that it is absent from this article?

I have just uploaded a picture of the building he was imprisoned in and started the article. prat (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Last Holy Roman Emperor to...

According to the Page about Knights, Max. was the last HREMP to lead his army into war and it links to here, but I see no ref to it here.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Decree expelling Jews, 1496

The section about "Banning of Jewish literature and expulsion of Jews" cites (verbally?) a source, which mentions a questionable name of something like "Neuenstadt". While "Wiener Neustadt" and "Styria" do have other sources also. In fact, "Carinthia" occurs additionally in other (jewish) sources, but "Neuenstadt" does not. These sources also give a place of resettlement in Burgenland. I deleted accordingly, thereby also disambiguating. Purgy (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Middle Coat of Arms of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did he ban jews?

This article does not say why he banned jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.140.148 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I add other succession areas

How can I put that Maximilian was King of Hungary, Bohemia, and Count of Flanders, even if you won't allow the edit, how do you add the category's that show what a person was king/Queen of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alixapixle8 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Austria 50 Schilling 1969 Maximilian I Silver Coin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox picture

A more famous portrait is not necessarily a good infobox portrait. There are debates on the realistic aspect of the painting. (Copied from my Talk page) His daughter Margaret thought the painting did not look like her father in normal conditions, and that Dürer exaggerated certain characteristics. On the other hand, some authors like Terjanian thought that the portrait was a very idealized portrayal of a man who was about to die very soon (and the next, more realistic portrait showed his corpse as very decimated). Such portraits will suit a "representation in arts and media" section/page (that I plan to eventually do for this emperor) than a wiki page about the person.Deamonpen (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Should the “Cultural patronage, reforms and image building” section be hived off into a new article?

This is a long article at 332k bytes. The Cultural patronage, reforms and image building section stands out as extremely lengthy in the overall context of the article. I think there’e a good argument for cut and pasting it into a new article (called possibly Maximilian I and the arts and sciences), per Wikipedia:Summary style, leaving behind a 2 or 3 paragraph synopsis. Views? DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I know that there is a case for making a separate article there, but I'm thinking of a way to make things balanced. I even think about the possibility of creating a common article from the "Military innovation", "Cultural patronage, reforms and image building", "Architecture", "Modern postal system and printing", because it will be a bit awkward if topics like hunting, dancing, architecture are separated from arts and court culture etc. Not to mention some matters that scholars have written whole books about (the mining industry, for example) but don't get added yet (nor do I have access to them). Maximilian I and the arts and sciences is a bit broad - it sounds like it encompasses the whole Maximiliana, but here it is only about his patronage or works directly dedicated to him. I'm working on a wiki article about (and possibly named) Cultural depictions of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor", also an aspect of that topic. Also a good summary will be needed, as Maximilian as a "cultural hero" is not necessarily less notable than Maximilian as a political leader - In the past, for multiple reasons, the former was even more thoroughly studied than the latter. Now they are making progresses on the latter, but works like "Maximilian and music/dance/jousting/the Ambraser_Heldenbuch/..." etc are still the majority (it will probably remain that way forever). Scholars admit that it is a bit hard to make a comprehensive biography of Maximilian (there is Hermann Wiesflecker's monumental work, but it too can get updated in some areas). It has been long noted that his regency/rule in Burgundian lands still awaits its historian (there are very recently published notable works, like those of Jelle Haemers).

Certainly, if you are willing to create the article yourself, it will be welcomed.Deamonpen (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks and I understand the points you make. particularly around scope and defining that scope. I might in the next few days attempt creating a draft in a sandbox and invite you to take a look. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New Wiki article

I've created a Cultural depictions article for him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_Holy_Emperor_Maximilian_I

Please take a look. Suggestions and help would be welcomed. Deamonpen (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Article status

Now that I look at this main article, it is currently a C class article. If someone looks at it and gives advice regarding how it can be improved, I will help. Also the article should be Top importance for Austria (currently unclassified), and I say Germany also. Maximilian's rule was the beginning of the modern age, the Holy Roman of the Empire of the German nation (and several historians would write "modern German entity/nation" - this might be true depending on how you define it) and definitely a German national culture. See Joachim Whaley, various publications named "from Charlemage/Otto I/... to Maximilian", "from Maximilian to..." (some are listed at the bottom of this article). For example. see this recent Roundtable on Helmut Walser Smith's Germany: A Nation in Its Time Before, During, and After Nationalism, 1500-2000. The person himself was the leading modernizing force in that era, by modern consensus.Deamonpen (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Erbe - for preservation

Found the Erbe part on reforms in Austria quoted by the previous user (left here for later reference), on page 23:

Die Zusammenfassung zu einem einheitlichen Staatswesen gelang freilich nicht . Aber auf die Reformtätigkeit Maximilians geht doch die Schaffung der drei nunmehr administrativ in sich einheitlicher gestalteten Ländergruppen zurück

First, here he states that one of the desired goals (consolidating Austria into a single state) was not successful (disputed by other authors, for example Georg Wagner: "Unter Maximilian I. aber kann man dann schon von einem Staat Österreich ( Bernhard Schmeidler , Alphons Lhotsky und andere ) sprechen, von einem Erzherzogsstaat oder Erblandestaat"; Brady: "Austria's passage from a gaggle of medieval patrimonial principalities into an early modern territorial state." - admittedly he attributes it to Frederick III, perhaps a bit too prematurely imho, since under Frederich III, Maximilian had just claimed back Austrian lands lost to Hungary for his father and became the ruler of Tyrol; Wiesflecker: Österreich im Zeitalter Maximilians I. Die Vereinigung der Länder zum frühmodernen Staat. Der Aufstieg zur Weltmacht. München 1999; etc), not that the whole "Burgundian model" (with its other aspects like creating institutions, recruiting and training professsional officials, governing more efficiently etc like Erbe himself lists) was "not very successful".

Secondly, this is a book that is good at providing general facts (covering almost four and a half centuries of the Habsburg dynasty in 292 pages) for newcommers and students - As one reviewer (Maximilian Lanzinner) comments:

Kleinere Ungenauigkeiten sind bei der Stofffülle unvermeidlich - Rudolf II. hielt fünf, nicht sechs Reichstage ab, im Jahr „1600" kam es nicht zum „Zusammenbruch der Reichsjustiz" (Beispiele S. 76). Im Allgemeinen aber werden Studierende, an die sich das Buch wohl hauptsächlich wendet, zuverlässig und ausgewogen informiert. Ihnen bietet sich die Möglichkeit, Geschichte von den Herrscherpersönlichkeiten her zu betrachten und sich mittels der gebotenen Personalisierung leichter Grundwissen anzueignen.

Also, I got carried away by the "Main Article: Imperial Reform" tag, so I did not focus much on Max's Austrian activities. The result is a bit unbalanced, but the article is a bit big now. This guy did too many things...

Deamonpen (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Maximilian and German and Austrian studies/Importance rating

I've just taken a look at what are currently considered Top-Importance and High-Importance Germany pages and Top-Importance and High-Importance Austria pages. With the Top Importance German pages, as expected, there is too much focus on modern German leaders. Meanwhile, the High Importance ones include several Holy Romman Emperors, including Maximilian I's descendants like Maximilian II, the Ferdinands and the Francises.

It should be noted that there was a recent Speyer exhibition, which was the first state-level Habsburg exhibition in Germany - unlike the Ottonen or the Hohenstaufen, the dynasty has never received that kind of attention in Germany before, although Maximilian I as an individual got things like the 2002 Wetzlar exhibition which was presided over by Roman Herzog and with a catalogue book that "could make all kings green with envy", according to Cauchies in a book about Philip the Handsome ("Le grand monarque fit aussi le 'une' d'une exposition au Reichskammergerichtsmuseum de Wetzlar et d'un livre- catalogue propre à faire pâlir d'envie les mânes de tous les rois", from Books in Transition at the Time of Philip the Fair, Brepols, 2010). The Speyer exhibition defines the dynasty as a dynasty of South German origin and the main content (resulting in this catalogue) purposely stops at Maximilian for a reason, even if they had a movie night for fan of Empress Sisi.

Am meisten gewürdigt, nämlich in bisher 15 Ausstellungen, wurde Maximilian I

[The most recognized (member of the dynasty), namely with 15 exhibitions by now, would be Maximilian I]

The state exhibition will focus on the period from the accession of King Rudolf I to the throne in 1273 to the reign of Emperor Maximilian I in the early 16th century.

Maximilian was an essential actor whose name could be used to define his era, as seen even in the works of recent historians (older historians tended to hero-worship monarchs much more openly, if they happen to find the individuals "great") - in the case of Germany:

• Heinrich Lutz (1983). Das Ringen um deutsche Einheit und kirchliche Erneuerung: von Maximilian I. bis zum Westfälischen Frieden, 1490 bis 1648. Propyläen.
• Joachim Whaley (2012). Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, 1493-1648. OUP Oxford.
• Thomas A. Brady Jr. German Histories in the Age of Reformations, 1400-1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 477 pp. $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-521-88909-4, ISBN 978-0-521-71778-6.

A review of Brady's book by Marc R.Forster reads: "This book is a tour de force by one of the leading historians of early modern Germany. Thomas A. Brady Jr. has written a history of the German lands in a grand narrative style, tracing political, religious, and social developments over two and a half centuries [...] The emperors, particularly Maximilian I and Charles V, are star actors in this drama."

For the Austrian side, we have the widely recognized works of Wiesflecker which defined him as the builder of the state of Austria (see this review (German)

• Wiesflecker, Hermann (1999) Österreich im Zeitalter Maximilians I.. Die Vereinigung der Länder zum frühmodernen Staat. Der Aufstieg zur Weltmacht. Oldenbourg Verlag.

This notion is stated by Brady as well: "In pre-1918 Austria , the concept of "nation" attached not to a language or culture but to the Austrian state, of which Maximilian could fairly be called the founder" Communities, Politics, and Reformation in Early Modern Europe, BRILL, 1998.

Maximilian is nowadays tied to the (early modern states) of Germany and Austria, and not the Holy Roman Empire or just "the Habsburg empire" alone. Thus I cannot understand why User:Tpbradbury insists on changing the Importance rating to "Low" for these two wiki projects, while they seem to be perfectly fine with his much less notable descendants who have never received such scholarly attention in connection to either Austria or Germany (bar [Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor|Ferdinand I] for Austria) being on the "High Importance" level?

As I've contributed much to this article, I hope that other reviewers will provide their objective views on this matter. Deamonpen (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)