Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
On this day of the 24th of February in the year of Our Lord 1530, Charles V was crowned as Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII in the Basilica of St. Petronius in Bologna at the time in the realm of the Papal States. Charles V was the last Holy Roman Emperor actually crowned by the Pope. What a glorious and magnificent day it must have been!
Here is more information:
http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-coronation-of-emperor-in-bologna.html
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/digital_collections/notable/procession.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor
http://www.holyromanempireassociation.com/holy-roman-emperor-charles-v.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Petronio_Basilica
I had just learned that the Holy Roman Emperor went through other ceremonies including a German ritual Aachen shown here for Charles V:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB5hRF7fzt8
Here is a hearkening back to the first Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqTTX6gZakk
More information on Charlemagne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ZlD9-4XuU
Viva el Emperador! Vivat Imperator!
Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
A greatly missed component in ensuring the Peace of the Church. Emperor Otto I was crucial in ending the Saeculum Obscurum where Pope were personally miscreants from violent and well armed Roman families or under their control.
Emporer Saint Heinrich II, King of the Germans, Duke of Bavaria, pray for us! Pray for a return to right order, Christendom.
This was before his armies sacked Rome itself.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 01, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
This was before his armies sacked Rome itself.
Right, but not under his orders. Right?
Quote from: Heinrich on March 01, 2018, 12:38:45 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 01, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
This was before his armies sacked Rome itself.
Right, but not under his orders. Right?
The sack of Rome happened in 1527., and it was indeed done by rebellious soldiers without orders from Charles V. The 1530 imperial coronation was also sort of a way of reconciling with Pope Clement VII.
It was a bunch of ravenous Prussians.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on March 01, 2018, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on March 01, 2018, 12:38:45 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 01, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
This was before his armies sacked Rome itself.
Right, but not under his orders. Right?
The sack of Rome happened in 1527., and it was indeed done by rebellious soldiers without orders from Charles V. The 1530 imperial coronation was also sort of a way of reconciling with Pope Clement VII.
The lack of pay was the cause of that rebellion or mutiny as Emperors and Kings often found themselves raising armies without a definite ability to pay for them. Noblemen of the sword could be taxed to a very limited degree, noblemen of the robe did pay for a position of service, but they were not to be relied upon as a major source of funds once the office was sold (say a tax office like , similarly with the clerical estate, and merchants and city burghers were highly reluctant to concede much, peasants could not be bled overmuch by tax farmers, internal tariffs were often evaded by smuggling, so kings could find themselves perpetually in the red. Soldiers weren't likely to starve even without pay or supplies, but the result was devastated lands and armies turn to a rabble.
Quote from: Prayerful on March 02, 2018, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Kephapaulos on March 01, 2018, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on March 01, 2018, 12:38:45 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 01, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
This was before his armies sacked Rome itself.
Right, but not under his orders. Right?
The sack of Rome happened in 1527., and it was indeed done by rebellious soldiers without orders from Charles V. The 1530 imperial coronation was also sort of a way of reconciling with Pope Clement VII.
The lack of pay was the cause of that rebellion or mutiny as Emperors and Kings often found themselves raising armies without a definite ability to pay for them. Noblemen of the sword could be taxed to a very limited degree, noblemen of the robe did pay for a position of service, but they were not to be relied upon as a major source of funds once the office was sold (say a tax office like , similarly with the clerical estate, and merchants and city burghers were highly reluctant to concede much, peasants could not be bled overmuch by tax farmers, internal tariffs were often evaded by smuggling, so kings could find themselves perpetually in the red. Soldiers weren't likely to starve even without pay or supplies, but the result was devastated lands and armies turn to a rabble.
I believe they were Lutheran mercenaries as well.
Did you know Charles V was the first monarch/government to issue bonds?
Quote from: drummerboy
Did you know Charles V was the first monarch/government to issue bonds?
Wow! I did not know that. Where can I find out more about that?
Quote from: Kephapaulos on March 04, 2018, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: drummerboy
Did you know Charles V was the first monarch/government to issue bonds?
Wow! I did not know that. Where can I find out more about that?
I read about it as an aside in William Thomas Walsh's
Philip II, which as alot of information about Charles V as well, including the Sack of Rome
Quote from: drummerboy on March 05, 2018, 10:50:44 AM
Quote from: Kephapaulos on March 04, 2018, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: drummerboy
Did you know Charles V was the first monarch/government to issue bonds?
Wow! I did not know that. Where can I find out more about that?
I read about it as an aside in William Thomas Walsh's Philip II, which as alot of information about Charles V as well, including the Sack of Rome
The city of Amsterdam issued government bonds in 1516-17. Wouldn't that have preceded Charles V issuing them?
Amsterdam would have been under his reign by that time, and so would that count?
Quote from: Kephapaulos on March 05, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
Amsterdam would have been under his reign by that time, and so would that count?
Probably, although those cities had a huge degree of self-governance.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 05, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Quote from: Kephapaulos on March 05, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
Amsterdam would have been under his reign by that time, and so would that count?
Probably, although those cities had a huge degree of self-governance.
That's true. They had more an independent and republican spirit to them.