Shedding Light on Europe's Long-Lost Empire

When Francis II abdicated the throne of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in August 1806, the longest-lasting political system in the German-speaking world ceased to exist. Founded by Otto I almost a millennium earlier, the empire had consisted of hundreds of estates, or state-like entities.

Perceived as weak by those who followed and abused by the Nazis as a mythic predecessor to their own dreams of a Reich that was meant to last a thousand years, the positive aspects of the Holy Roman Empire have only been illuminated in recent decades.

To mark the 200th anniversary of the end of the empire, numerous German museums are offering special exhibitions on the empire. On Monday, the most ambitious endeavor, a joint exhibition of the Museum of Cultural History in Magdeburg and the German Historical Museum in Berlin, will open its doors to the public.

To find out more about the empire's importance for Germany's history and any lessons the European Union could draw from it, DW-WORLD.DE spoke with Brigitte Mazohl-Wallnig, the director of the history department at Innsbruck University. She is the author of "Turn of an Era 1806: The Holy Roman Empire and the Birth of Modern Europe."

DW-WORLD.DE: Why should people still care about the Holy Roman Empire today?

Brigitte Mazohl-Wallnig: The Holy Roman Empire is the foundation of our common European history. It should be anchored much more strongly in the collective memory of all Europeans than is currently the case. It can help to remove the filter of the "nation state" that we're used to employ when looking at history.

Can one really speak of an empire?

I think that it was an empire, which clearly identified itself as such and was perceived as such. There were common basic laws, which indeed formed something akin to a basic constitution. There was the imperial parliament, two imperial courts of justice and imperial districts. There was the emperor, as the guarantor of this order and a superior entity, which -- nota bene -- was not absolutist. The system was a dual one. The emperor basically could not decide without the imperial parliament.

Why did the empire eventually fall apart?

During the 18th century, the individual estates, especially the larger ones, increasingly drew on the absolutist model and engaged in internal and external power politics. The decisive death blow came during the Napoleonic wars, when it became obvious that Prussia and Austria were no longer focused on the common interests. As a result, the southern German estates followed suit and made arrangements with Napoleon. They became autonomous, sovereign states.

How did the absence of a nation state influence Germany's history later on?

It didn't only influence Germany, but all central Europe, including Italy, Austria and eastern European countries. The fall of the empire created a vacuum in the middle of Europe, which was filled with Italian and German nationalism -- with all the consequences that this had for World War I. (Austrian playwright Franz) Grillparzer already predicted at the time: "From humanitarianism to nationalism to beastliness."

Some of your colleagues think that the Third Reich clouded the view of the Holy Roman Empire (Reich). Do you agree?

Definitely. The word "Reich" alone has become offensive since then. As a historian, I think that the propaganda of the 19th century was even worse. There was a flood of insults. Everything the 19th century had dreamt about, namely a strong state, was not characteristic of the Reich. That's why people only said negative things about it.

Are there aspects of the empire that the modern entity European Union could adopt?

Let me exaggerate a little: It's almost as if the EU picks up where things left off in 1806. Similar questions to those that were asked backed then have to be asked again: What responsibilities lie with the supra-structure, the community? What responsibilities remain at the lower level, with individual states? How are the smaller ones represented in relation to the bigger ones?

Under today's democratic conditions, we are faced with similar questions that were answered back then after centuries of controversy. One can learn from this that Europe definitely needs a common basic law and a common constitution, which can be accepted by everyone. The empire's basic laws were broad enough to be supported by everyone and still tight enough to serve as a sufficient, common band. The empire also had a strong political symbolism. It knew how to make itself seen. Europe isn't as visible. It hasn't really developed a common European symbolism.

What could it look like?

The empire failed because it no longer had a common defense and foreign policy. One should really think about whether a community doesn't need a convincing, common foreign policy. And if Europe remembers the empire's peace order, it could score this way: "We are a European peace order and we don't go along with global militarization and the like." The empire never lay claim to hegemony. It never wanted to expand. It just wanted to be, what it was and remained relatively open in terms of its borders.