The Holy Roman Empire lasted a thousand years; far longer than ancient Rome. Yet this formidable dominion never inspired the awe of its predecessor. Voltaire distilled the disdain of generations when he quipped it was neither holy; Roman; nor an empire. Yet as Peter Wilson shows; the Holy Roman Empire tells a millennial story of Europe better than the histories of individual nation-states. And its legacy can be seen today in debates over the nature of the European Union.Heart of Europe traces the Empire from its origins within Charlemagne’s kingdom in 800 to its demise in 1806. By the mid-tenth century its core rested in the German kingdom; and ultimately its territory stretched from France and Denmark to Italy and Poland. Yet the Empire remained stubbornly abstract; with no fixed capital and no common language or culture. The source of its continuity and legitimacy was the ideal of a unified Christian civilization; but this did not prevent emperors from clashing with the pope over supremacy―the nadir being the sack of Rome in 1527 that killed 147 Vatican soldiers.Though the title of Holy Roman Emperor retained prestige; rising states such as Austria and Prussia wielded power in a way the Empire could not. While it gradually lost the flexibility to cope with political; economic; and social changes; the Empire was far from being in crisis until the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars; when a crushing defeat by Napoleon at Austerlitz compelled Francis II to dissolve his realm.
#2278500 in Books Harvard University Press 2010-04-10 2010-03-08Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 7.90 x 1.20 x 5.10l; .95 #File Name: 0674047362400 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. A different perspectiveBy ObaidIn South Asian Islamic history Shah Wali Ullah is much reverend and truly. But no one; that i know; had such a critical analysis of Shah Wali Ullah thoughts and how it shaped the Muslim identity struggles afterwards; as Ayesha Jalal. Much recommended as an alternative perspective.4 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Badly writtenBy haruThe book is shabbily written even though it provides useful information on the subject. Very often; it remains unclear whether the historical facts are author's own views or references to the subject. She fails to detach herself from the history and at times sounds like a spokesperson for the subject. The ambiguity of the arguments increases as the distinction between the subject and the author diminishes. The book needs heavy revision and editing.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Striving for a worthy causeBy ellisonBegins in the 1850's telling about a guy that wanted to go jihad but had trouble finding anybody to actually go. He borrow$ fund$ to pay guy$ to go; they are willing if they can pick up some war booty. Says Islam fears freedom; Capitalism; and democracy. First-hand accounts of thought feels; and beliefs. Insightful but a reader may have to push to get through this. B/W images; two maps. Claims jihad is the battle to be a good human.---
