Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Knowledgia" channel.

The HRE wasn't all that dysfunctional, it protected the small and micro "states" within its "borders" for a millennia and outside of inheritance and person unions, it kept much of the "empire" from being annexed while retaining a massive amount of autonomy. It most especially assisted in the prevention of France, Poland, Russia, and the Ottomans from dominating central Europe until Napoleon came about. And Napoleon won almost every fight he was in and yet the HRE itself still gave him numerous amounts of trouble before the Habsburg Empire was proclaimed. The fact a mostly theoretical political entity lasted for so long and was so effective for so long at protecting its rather non-existent borders is a testament to the strength and quality of the HRE. Even beyond such it was the first entity in the world to protect religious freedom, an unheard of tradition to be found in the rest of the world up until the late 1700s, (and it did this by the 1500s) granted that was after a bunch of religious wars, but the fact that it happened in the HRE and not in Russia, Poland, France, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire is a testament to how advanced the concept of the HRE really was. (I am aware Poland/PLC and Ottomans had some forms of tolerance, but that was nothing compared to the tolerance of a religious peace found in the HRE, its quite a unique case in history)
133
@Patrick C Actually there is no historicity of the Children's Crusade, no one can actually point to when it happened, and it seems that if it did (which the closest we got is a bunch of peasants marching through France for a bit and then giving up) nobody gave them a ride out of France.
5
To be fair about Wilhelm, he loved the German people, the problem with him was he was a horrible diplomat when he was in power, while much of what he tried to do was respectable, I disagree vehemently with his ideology. (as it had a decent amount of socialist leanings) Had he been less expansionist, especially since in owning Alsace-Loraine he was already raring the French up for a bid to the borderlands, he could've become a great German Emperor and not so often treated as the joke he has been treated as. Doesn't really help that him and Otto were so constantly at each other throats and thus forced him to resign, that being one of the worst things he could've ever done. (and note Otto was so vehemently anti-socialist that he actually wanted to expel some socialists from Germany altogether, which honestly I don't see all that distinct from being full socialist, but they disagreed heavily on the social welfare of the German nation and that's what destroyed the Empire)
2
@johnmorales6281 You need to realize that wasn't exclusive to the HRE and only in the HRE could the Peace of Augsburg be signed, regardless of what people think of the aftermath, that was a legendary peace, its only after the 30 years war that anyone even can start to consider the HRE as functionally dead, and it wasn't the only entity nearly killed by that conflict. You also need to consider how violent periods beforehand were, comparatively the HRE's reign was often pretty tame most especially since fighting a war instead of bring things to the court of the emperor was outside the norm in majority of cases. And even still it retains the existence of micro and mini states with their own faiths upto the 1800s, that's impressive enough.
2
@keizelharf5393 All nations to a degree tolerate some religious majorities, none, not the Caliphates, Chinese dynasties, and not even Cyrus, tolerated minorities beforehand, the HRE did, now that's not all minorities but there had never before been an institution that both spoke of the moral authority and prevented overt persecution of those who did not strictly adhere to it enmass.
2
*4th crusade
1
@owenb8636 The religious freedom could not have happened if not for the HRE, neither could have the Reformation in any successful regard, also that would've just further alienated the Calvinists, Hussites, and some of the Lutherans if when they enforced a peace the rulers stuck to persecuting the common people, most of the reason any of them persecuted Catholic authority (which was rarely aimed at Catholics specifically) was because of corruption and persecution but even within that period that concept was already being weened out and being opposed by the point of the Religious Leagues, the war at that point mostly had to do with deciding who would rule the HRE, not in enforcing a lack of religious persecution which was already becoming a tenuous objective, too many people at that point for the Catholic Church to erase (and it would've just popped up anyway) and the Reformers were pretty dedicated to just being separate from Catholic rule and persecution. Also the Edict of Nantes failed where the Reformers were still persecuted and exiled.
1
Better dead then Red, let the socialists burn.
1
The execution is how you can know that the Mexicans involved had no regard for the preservation of life, (I can't speak to the civil war beforehand but I can say you are not universally granted justification to execute governance even in wartime law) there is no point to killing someone you oust of power, it doesn't matter if someone was brought over to take over the country, unless they are responsible for the death of innocence in peacetime, there is no suitable case for execution, and he can't logically have been committing treason unless he was a recognized Mexican Citizen, in which case his trial shouldn't have included the death penalty for this anyway. Wartime is no justification for a lack of justice, I pray that those who sought such things repented of their acts, but given everything I have my doubts, its uncommon for post-war actors to seek forgiveness, they usually just carry the shame and guilt. (and the Catholicism is already bad enough with ignoring the forgiveness for guilt and shame)
1
@periclesperez103 You are not given just cause to kill for an idea, that gives credence to kill for opposing politics and disagreements alone, (which ironically makes the reformists and any opposer to violence as hypocrites) and not even to say all the murderers and psychopaths that justifies.
1