Reinterpreting Men who Died for Labor

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge, ... It is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitue, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prison-"
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many more would rather die."
         A Christmas Carol. 1843. Charles Dickens.

     For just over two centuries, human society has transitioned into the Industrial Age. Before that time, credited with beginning in England at the end of the eighteenth century, the points and purposes of work were to sustain oneself and one's family, provide for those that could not provide for themselves, and save for future times of need. Machinery simplifies repetitive tasks and speeds up the means of production; thus, mass production not only led to a consumerist culture since more goods were manufactured than needed but also led to a population boom that created a frontier-style mentality of humankind, that is, that humans were an expendable resource that could easily be replaced. While modern industrialized countries now have steady or declining birth rates and bulk at the wanton waste of human life in developing nations, throughout the nineteenth century, Europe had a mindset that human death or disfigurement for capital gain was acceptable, even virtuous.
     As the Age of Industrialization has progressed, work has been made easier and with less exploitation of common works for the gains of the rich. Labor unionization, largely in the twentieth century, enabled the workforce to unite for gain, recognition, and protection. This mentality aided in popularizing socialist ideals throughout Europe through the current day. Work was not always a mindlessly repetitive affair accomplished by machines because skilled artisans used to be responsible for the means of production.
     The Luddites were a loosely organized group of artisans that armed in resistance to wage decreases brought on unskilled workers running machines for lower wages than artisans who had no other support for their livelihood. Luddites did not fear technology, machinery, or the transition into an age of mass production. Their fear was a loss of labor to unskilled workers for reduced wages. For acting out on that fear, hundreds were killed or exiled.

     These industrious, intelligent, skillful men expressed their anger by destroying the cause of their destruction: the machines that replaced them. Often they posted letters attributing the destruction of machines by the order of King Ludd or General Ludd who was rumored to live in Sherwood Forest, home of the fabled Robin Hood. This mascot, a fictitious figure gave the Luddite Cause momentum, mystique, and an unconquerable hope. In 1812, 12,000 British troops were deployed to quell civil uprising and protect factories in north-central England. This force outnumbered the one that occupied the Iberian Peninsula to fight Napoleon. 

     Meeting the concerns of the people with force and legal punishments of execution or penal exilement to Australia led to an impassioned plea of a Romantic sympathizer in the House of Lords in 1812 before the passage of the Frame Breaking Act. On February 27, 1812, Lord Byron pleaded:

During the short time I recently passed in Nottingham, not twelve hours elapsed without some fresh act of violence, and on that day, I left the county I was informed that forty Frames had been broken the preceding evening, as usual, without resistance and without detection. Such was the state of our country, and such I have reason to believe it to be at this moment. But whilst these outrages must be admitted to exist to an alarming extent, I cannot be denied that they have arisen from circumstances of the most unparalleled distress.
The perseverance of these miserable men in their proceedings, tends to prove that nothing but absolute want could have driven a large and once honest and industrious, body of the people, into the commission of excesses so hazardous to themselves, their families, and their community. They were not ashamed to beg, but there was none to relieve them: their own means of subsistence were cut off, all other employment preoccupied; and their excesses, however to be deplored and condemned, can hardly be subject to surprise.
 As the sword is the worst agruement that can be used, so should it be the last. In this instance it has been the first, but providentially as yet only the scabbard. The present measure will, indeed, pluck it from the sheath; yet had proper meetings been held in the earlier stages of these riots, had the grievances of these men and their masters (for they also had their grievances) been fairly weighted and justly examined, I do think that means might have been devised to restore these workmen to their avocations, and tranquility to the country.

     The crimes of the Luddites were not often the destruction of factories or the murder of factory owners. With some exceptions, attacks were carried out at night against machine-based factories whose owners had opted to fire and displace a large worker base. The anger of the common man was not against machine but against the abuse of his fellow man.
     While the term "Luddite" has come to mean a backward-minded, fear-mongering, simpled-headed individual too scared or stupid to accept change, the true motivation of the men two centuries dead was a fear of becoming obsolete and taken for granted. This is true of many societies today whether industrializing from manpower to machine or as machines expand to encompass and control more industries.
     The protest at the beginning of the Industrial Age did not go unheard; it went misinterpreted. As always, those who do not know, understand, or forget history must suffer the repetition of its lessons Let us keep our sledgehammers in hand, ever prepared to resist the avarice of those who do not value community or quality, only the wealth gained through exploitation.

 __    

Agatha Tyche

Mugwumps

     The Twentieth Century, known as the American Century, elevated the United States' reach expand with unprecedented power economically, militarily, and influentially around the world. That century saw the United States involved in interventionists wars in every decade on nearly every continent. The path to American Imperialism did not rise unprotested from the world; indeed, a full decade of debate in American politics fought against the militaristic domination of the mighty the American economy.
     Anti-expansionist isolationists began cries of alarm in the 1860s with American's consideration of annexing several Pacific islands. As American foreign relations swelled, these isolationists, referred to as Mugwumps, joined forces with a large number of Republicans to create a considerable anti-imperialist political movement in the 1890s.
     The Spanish-American War allegedly fought over humanitarian issues on the Caribbean Island of Cuba was the first American interventionist war and foreshadowed the entire twenty-first century. Despite the humanitarian declaration that incited U.S. intervention, after the war the island of Cuba was ruled through an American military state some years. Since war proponents had encouraged removal of Spanish influence to protect American interests, anti-imperialists feared further annexation of territories abroad to defend American economic intersts. With this logic, William Sumner argued that “the U.S. would have to dominate the entire world to feel safe in any part of it.”¹ The Mugwumps’ protest intensified.

1 William Sumner. “The Predominant Issue,” War and Other Essays. Edited by Albert Keller. (New Haven,

Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1919), 351.

     The Mugwumps as a whole were older members of society that refused to accepted the industrial changes throughout America and sought to return to the agrarianism espoused by President Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. Several of their strongest reasons for opposing American imperialism rested on the statements of that president and of the views of many of the Founding Fathers.

     A republic is composed of free citizens; an empire has subjects. The Constitution does not prohibit control over non-citizens, but to control small islands around the world, the United States would have to force itself onto those people and rule through oppression as the European Empires did at the time. American isolationists argued that a republic cannot govern without consent of the govern. Pro-expansionists defended their stance that occupational force was a necessary evil and would allow the U.S. to defend native islanders against any future invaders.

   Bourke Cockran, a Tammany Hall leader, spoke out against Republican expansionist policies because, “it is cowardly to invade the rights of the weak while respecting those of the strong; because it would divorce the American flag from the American Constitution . . . because it is a policy of inconceivable folly from a material point of view, and a policy of unspeakable infamy from a moral point of view.” These reservations against invasions did not sway its opposition because they believed that the growing might of U.S. economy needed military and trade bases to aid in dispersal of American goods.

    The domestic social unrest of late nineteenth century America's adjustment to industrialization complicated the issue further by having to adjust to the assimilation of ten million freed slaves after the Civil War's end in 1865. Isolationists feared that the incorporation of Pacific Islanders into American society would further disintegrate American society and that the the cost of providing governing laws and a military presence abroad would outweigh any economic benefit.

     One of the last arguments by Mugwumps and isolationist-Republicans held on to the American colonial fear of a large standing army and a subsequent, substantial national debt limiting the freedoms of Americans and necessitating the federal government retracting upon its own anti-colonial history. George Hoar, a Republican senator for Massachusetts, equated expansionist principles with “forsak[ing] the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, the Monroe Doctrine, and the nation’s traditional distrust of a standing army.”² These reservations did not successfully counter the dogmatic, imperialist viewpoints of the pro-expansionist movement and American became a colonial power by the close of the nineteenth century.
 2Robert Beisner. Twelve Against the Empire: The Anti-Imperialists 1898-1900. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill 

Book Company, 1971),

     The fundamental purpose of the anti-expansionists was to defend the United States on Constitutional grounds. Anti-imperialism failed because of advanced age of many of its leaders, inability to connect with the new industrial population, and the negative approach to the isolationist arguments.

     Despite their political defeat by McKinley, Roosevelt, and other Republican expansionists by 1900, the anti-imperialists were fairly accurate in their predictions. The Philippine Islands’ rebellion cost thousands of American lives. American treatment of the Filipino population was the same or worse than the previous Spanish overseers. American military expenditures did increase causing greater taxes with the formation of the Federal Income Tax. Imperialism inextricably involved America in European political affairs.

     With the abandonment of its isolationist policies, America lost her innocence and transformed into an imperial country. Expansionist government changed the social, economic, and constitutional perceptions of Americans and colonies alike. “The traditional consensus persisted: America has a unique set of values, way of life, and form of government to offer the world . . . the consensus then divided, as it always had, between those who believed those goods were best spread benignly, by example, or assertively, by force.”³ With the collapse of the anti-imperialist movement at the close of the nineteenth century, America entered the new era with a new purpose: to destroy those who oppress and to liberate the weak.

3  Walter Nugent. Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion. (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), 315.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Round about to the New World

     Humans live in a wide variety of habitats around the world from the ice-covered Arctic Circle and high altitude valleys of the Himalayas to warm, tropic jungles and vast, intercontinental deserts. Aside from Antarctica, human history covers the world. The major continental division created by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans has effectively separated the two major land groupings between Old and New Worlds. While Christopher Columbus, a fifteenth-century Spanish-sponsored sailor, is recognized as the discoverer that brought knowledge of the New World into the collective conscious of the European world, he was not the first one to find this huge land mass in the Western Hemisphere.
     When Columbus's crew arrived, native peoples already lived throughout North and South America with well-developed agricultural systems, impressive architecture, and powerful empires. Obviously people lived in the Americas long before their "discovery" by Columbus, but was there any other historical knowledge of this land aside from its inhabitants?
     In 1961 archaeologists discovered evidence of a Norse settlement along the Canadian coast. This proved that medieval sailors had the sailing capacity to reach across the Atlantic with stops at the settlements of Iceland and Greenland. The Icelandic Annals report the birth of a child in the settlement before war with the native "Skraelings" drove the settlement back to Greenland.
     This Norse settlement is the only widely accepted, documented, and evidenced proof of interaction between Old and New Worlds within the last several thousand years. Propositions of Phonecian sailors, medieval European sailors, Mali-nese sailors, and the Chinese sailor Zheng He all base claims on circumstantial evidence or on evidence that could have been fabricated anachronistically.
     Despite these contested findings of settlements and trade routes in the Pre-Columbian world, people did colonize the Americas before their discovery by Europeans in 1492. The most famous of the theories of American settlement is the overland migration over the Berring Strait during lower ocean levels. Theories involving Polynesian island hopping and even island hopping from Japan along the Berring land bridge. Both of these claims are based on archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence although methods, dating, and migrant numbers are debated.

     Regardless of the accuracy of any of these theories, several things stand out. First, the Americas were indeed colonized long ago largely by Asiatic and Micronesian peoples. Second, Columbus initiated continuous contact of Europe and the Old World to a previously isolated land mass. Lastly, modern historian methodology closely mirrors scientific mentality in process, methodology, and peer-reviewed claims.
     The globalization of the modern era continues to benefit many people through agriculture, knowledge, and economics, but the founding process for intercontinental contact was long, difficult, controversial, and tentative. Despite the dangers of invasive species, trade imbalance, and pollution, let us enjoy the ever-widening distribution of health, food, and promise around the world in an era of peace.


  __    
Agatha Tyche

Failure

     Throughout history empires have expanded, consolidated, and collapsed while leaving lasting imprints on culture, geography, and a huge variety of human efforts. Few of those grand imperial machines lasted more than a few generations, but most contributed to molding the world either through their efforts or by creating spite in their enemies as motivation to achieve greatness. Through all this, it becomes evident that the size and momentary power of man's greatest orchestrations cannot last and must decay.
     Success is achievement. Variations of that definition occur in fields and cultural specific agendas, but the accomplishment of a desired aim is the root meaning of success. If success is achievement, what is failure?
     Failure is surrender of motivation to defeat.
     Great generals are known for their strategic maneuvers, charisma, and ambition. Good leaders are inspirational, innovative, and stalwart, and triumphant generals often possess those characteristics. As firepower has exponentially increased over the centuries, generals have retreated from the front lines and now command troops from relative safety. This alteration in the tactical separation of command and troop deployment leaves the last few decades seemingly bare of awe-inspiring figures. Now people look to the past to see the actions of great men played out in all their glory.
    As France convulsed in the turmoil of its revolution in the last decade of the eighteenth century, Napoleon Bonaparte ascended through the military ranks because of his courage, connections, and performance. Clever and manipulative, Napoleon gained effective dictatorial control over France by 1799 and was entitled emperor by Pope Pious VII in 1804.
     Napoleon ruled France as emperor for ten years and conquered much of Europe. While not a perfect leader, he maintained solid support at home and amazing love in the troops he traveled alongside. Despite repeated defeats from the Russian invasion in the winter of 1812 and the significant loss at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, Napoleon continued to lead through strength of character to inspire his hundreds of thousands of troops. In 1814 the marshalls of his army mutinied against him and surrendered France's emperor to its enemies.
     When the foreign powers gained control over France, they banished Napoleon to Elba, a small island in the Mediterranean where he acted as Emperor over the 12,000 inhabitants. While sparing his life and allowing retention of his title was generous of the victorious European leaders, Napoleon remained ambitiously unsatisfied and escaped to return to France within a year.
     For one hundred days Napoleon raised support, readied the army, and reconsolidated his power. With this new army, Napoleon marched north to attack the British. After repeated onslaughts did not dislodge the British army from its position, the Prussian army arrived to attack Napoleon's right flank and decimate his remaining troops. With huge losses at the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon retreated to Paris where the government's and people's support of him had soured. He abdicated to his son, fled Paris, and continued to flee from capture until seeking asylum with the British one month later

     Suffering incredible losses in the failed Russian campaign, losing more in the Battle of Lepzig, and being banished to a small, rural island did not diminish the dreams, ambition, or charisma of Napoleon. He returned, garnered more strength, and repeated efforts to subdue all of Europe. Napoleon did not truly lose until he surrendered his will, not on the battlefield, but his life on the island of Saint Helena in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. A determined, inspired man, Napoleon did not allow distance, odds, technology, or coalitions to alter his dreams. After Waterloo and the rejection of his beloved France, Napoleon was beaten down internally and morally and never recovered. Suffering deep depression and completely unable to escape to return to France a second time, Napoleon Bonaparte became a failure because he surrendered his ambition to depression.
     Regardless of the definition, defeat is nearly impossible to achieve for some men that are self-driven to greatness. Using skill to rise through the ranks of a tumultuously governed France, Napoleon became an emperor, an emperor who was never defeated by anyone but himself when he accepted failure.


  __    
Agatha Tyche

Theonolism

     Individuals, religions, institutions, and political parties all have views that dictates their interpretations of the world around them, that explains their actions, justifies their goals, and accounts for abnormalities in their understanding of new information. A culture usually consists of several of these worldviews varying from a close-knit society with minimal discrepancies to a multicultural society with acknowledged disagreements. A nation state can consist of one or many cultures, people groups, and religions. The worldview of a nation combines the disparate views of its constituents and averages them, polishing the edges yet retaining strength from the fervor of the population.
     The worldview of a nation state, for this article, is theonolism.

Etymology

• The Greek word/derivative for god is "theo." In human mythologies, gods are the most powerful entities in existence from which everything is derived and is accountable to.
• The Greek word/derivative for idea or an area of study is "ol." Examination and refinement is essential to economics, military strategy, and political alliances. The "n" is added as a carry-over from nationalism, a sense of pride that one's nation is unquestionably better than all others.
• The Greek word/derivative for belief is "ism." Belief justifies action, inspires passion, and secures conformity within its converts. 

Components
     Theonolism is a union of culture, religious values, purposes of the state, and international intentions of the state.
     The purposes of the state are the intentions and goals that the governed population desires for the government to achieve. One of the most often used examples of the purpose of government is protection of its citizens. The citizens then must allow the government enablement of that purpose, usually through taxation, but occasionally through war drafts. Once the nation has the support of its population, it can extend itself into the wider world to interact with other countries that have their own theonolisms. Countries with similar beliefs group together and often form alliances that combine their powers throughout the world stage. The stronger a nation is militarily and economically the greater its projection of its theonolism on the world.
     Traditionally, the projection of a nation is termed as its sphere of influence. This sphere depends upon a number of economic, militaristic, geographical, and technological factors, and the result is the ability of a country to alter results within that sphere to best suit its own interests. A nation's theonolism is the values that contribute to decisions within the sphere of influence.

     The theonolism of the United States is roughly summed up by "capitalism" since money governs the United States's actions and interests, but America presents a softer, kinder, humanitarian front as its seeks wealth from other nations. As a democratic-republic the United States allows its citizens to choose the leaders that represent the theonolism of the people which is then projected through its sphere of influence. Many election-based countries have similar mechanisms. The results of this electoral system can create a rapid change in theonolism after an election period because new elected officials use their power to achieve different aims.
     Certain nations have a historical theonolism of expansion such as Russia, the United States, and many European powers. Other nations offer a historical theonolism of containment either because of isolationism or an inability to project such as North Korea, the Middle East, and many African nations. While these trends aid in presenting a cohesive interpretation of a nation's theonolism, theonolism can change if a country gets previously unknown amounts of power or when positioned to obliterate a weakened enemy.
     When theonolisms conflict, the ideological tension can lead to war or trade isolation through sanctions. If two major theonolisms are present in a single nation-state, a by-product culture blends extremes internationally because of division domestically. In the cases of the Ukraine Crisis or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a region fights between two theonolisms to determine its dominate theonolism because the status quo negotiation is unacceptable. This conflict sparks many civil wars though the divisive issue can vary widely in scope, impact, and context.
     The new idea that is portrayed in this article is not a word, not a regurgitated analysis of spheres of influence, not a project of philosophical exercise. The idea emphasis of this post is to bring attention to the fact that the mindset, worldview, ideology of a nation is a component of its people's projections on the world. The major components of this are beliefs (assumptions about the world), convictions (desires to keep or alter facets of the world), and empowerment (the ability to enact beliefs and convictions on the world).
     Where in the past, a nation could be represented by a monarch, today's modern elections change the face of leaders too often for them to holistically represent a country's desires. However, since most nations remain on steady courses, the underlying drive of that goal is not a single leader but the collective worldview of the people.


  __    
Agatha Tyche

Nast vs Boss Tweed: A Real Life Cartoon

     The written word has enabled a proliferation of knowledge, communication, and understanding since its induction to human society several thousands of years ago. Before writing, mankind drew pictures, some of which are still evidenced on cave walls around the world. It is pictures that can convey a plethora of complex thoughts in an instant, and Thomas Nast, a nineteenth century political cartoonist, demonstrated the influence that images can have.
     Thomas Nast (1840-1902) became a cartoonist for New York's Harper's Weekly in 1859 and retained that position until 1886. Although he briefly attended school, he never proved adept. His skill was in his pen.
His first published drawing for Harper's Weekly involved the corruption of a police scandal and set the tone, purpose, and politics of most of his career.
     The many accomplishments of Nast include the popularization of iconic portrayals of the Democratic Party's donkey, Uncle Sam, and Lady Columbia as well as the modern depiction of Santa Claus as a cheery, fat man with reindeer. He is credited with inventing the Republican Party's elephant. His largest impacts on history, however, are through the influence he had on the presidential elections from 1864-1884. Because a large number of Americans could not read, the political drawings enabled voters to stay informed. Nast was instrumental in electing Ulysses S. Grant in the 1868 and 1872 elections, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and he is credited with winning Grover Cleveland the small margin by which he won the presidency in 1884.
     Of all of these accomplishments, Nast is perhaps most famed for the take down of William "Boss" M. Tweed and the Tammany Hall Ring of New York City by publishing dozens of images depicting the corruption of the elected officials. Tweed so feared Nast's works that he offered a bribe of $100,000 that increased to $500,000 which Nast refused.

     A few years before Nast's popularity, William Tweed was an elected official from 1858-71 and is credited with the establishment of a criminal organization of New York City officials. The Ring was solid, ensured high payments of its constituents on city jobs, and was influential throughout the courts, legislature, treasury, and ballot box. The Tammany Ring consisted of close friends of Tweed and was highly organized and profitable through money laundering for all involved with estimates from $25-200 million stolen from the City of New York.
     Tweed's success depended on the power of immigrant Irish voters and the city elite's trust in his keeping this portion of the population controlled. During the Orange Riot of 1871, Irish Catholics attacked a Protestant parade where sixty people were killed. This event weakened his interactions with the city elite, but his downfall came from the newspapers. Nast's images were such a problem that Tweed said, "Stop them pictures. I don't care so much what the papers say about me. My constituents don't know how to read, but they can't help seeing them pictures!" Although investigations had been undertaken prior to the riots, Tweed successfully bought off all accusers. When Tweed's friend and bookkeeper died, the books ended up in the hands of the New York Times which published accusatory findings in July 1871.
     In 1873 Tweed was arrested for fraud but escaped in 1875 and fled to Spain. He he was arrested because of his depictions in Nast's drawings.
     Thomas Nast and William Tweed both represented the hope of America to the rest of the world: that hard work could bring wealth, success, and recognition. Nast achieved his wealth and fame through excellent artwork, skillful insight, and artistic talent. Tweed gained influence, power, and riches through scheming, corruption, and gangs. Though neither man died well off, Nast remained respected throughout his life while Tweed has become Nast's caricature: the very image of corrupt corporate wealth.


  __    
Agatha Tyche

Holy, Roman, and an Empire

     The actions of emperors of long gone empires still impact modern life. July and August have thirty-one days to make them among the longest days of the year. Originally with thirty days, February was robbed of two days to make these adjustments possible. The Roman emperors and Roman laws have some of the longest and farthest reaching impacts of history. Rome directly birthed both the Byzantine Empire, which lasted until the fifteenth century, and Europe. Europe went on to influence and dominate the world, especially in the nineteenth century, and it is appropriate for a topic that deals with a mixture of both Rome and Europe to begin with Rome.
     Living in an age of absolute monarchs, Voltaire, the famous French philosopher of the eighteenth century, famously stated, "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." When this was said, the Holy Roman Empire had less than a century of existence left, and it was another Frenchman, Napoleon Bonaparte, that dismembered the nine-hundred year old empire.
     The Holy Roman Empire was never a simple state governed by one monarch. While the power of the emperor increased for several centuries, the size and terrain, hindered by the Alps, limited absolute control over the territory. The diversity of culture and history throughout the region further complicated assertions of control and led to a constant, internal fracturing of provinces throughout the centuries; these many narratives complicate a single explanation or agenda of the empire throughout its nine-hundred year existence. Thus, due to the complicated, constantly shifting power structure, fluid borders, and variant personalities of the monarchs, an uneven presentation of the power of the empire through the centuries must look at distinct people and periods since the world greatly changed from establishment to abolishment.
     A reflection of this unpredictable nature, the name itself changed multiple times as the purpose and peoples of the empire shifted. The most famous, longest lasting, and most recognized name is the one that will be explained and defended based, not off of the empire of Voltaire's day but, on history.
Roman
     Otto the Great became king of German-based East Francia in 936, stabilized his rule, and successfully conquered Northern Italy and Rome in 951. In 962 Pope John XII crowned him as Emperor over the German and Roman Empires. Because of the regional overlap and an understanding passed down from the Merovingian and Carolingian rulers, Otto assumed translatio imperii which placed him as the inheritor of Charlemagne's and the Western Rome Empires.
     Further legitimizing claims of reestablishing the Roman Empire, Otto the Great was the only emperor to have marital ties with the Byzantine Empire, the inheritor of the Eastern Roman Empire. While this success is notable, it was short lived since the son born from this marriage had a short reign and never had children.
    Although there was some overlap, the Holy Roman Empire's power base around Saxony Germany was never ruled by the Roman Empire. Rome never succeeded in expanding as far northeast as Otto's land claims, but with the control of the city of Rome, the conveyance of power and authority succeeded in legitimizing the claims in the new emperors.

Holy
     Control over Rome and Northern Italy allowed the emperor to control the pope and through him Western Christendom that extended to the rest of Europe. Frederick I Barbarossa solidified this strategy and expended great efforts to ascertain imperial influences throughout Italy. Under his reign the empire adopted the title of "holy" to demonstrate this desire to dominate the papacy. Interestingly, this power struggle reinforced the Investiture Controversy which pitted the powers of pope versus the powers of the king.
     One of the largest obstacles in justifying the title of "holy," notably after the Investiture Controversy, is that as the power of the empire waned, Rome became independent and the justification for the title faded away. In an attempt to renegotiate its name, the 1512 Diet of Cologne changed the official name to "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" since controls over Italian lands had disappeared.
Empire
     The Confederation of Germanic tribes, governance over dozens of modern nation states, and successful passage of inheritance rights through several generations attest to the strength and endurance of the empire. Even in its last years, the empire ruled over an assortment of Germanic states, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and portions of other modern countries.
     The most significant opposition to the declaration of empire comes from imperial coronation by the pope. Harkening back to Charlemagne and Otto I, many rulers only took the title of "emperor" after official papal recognition. From 1493 to 1806, only Charles V (1530) was crowned as emperor. The languishing power of the kings lasted three hundred years until a truly powerful emperor put the millennium-old state out of its misery.

     Undoubtedly names hold power. Even today oppressive, authoritarian, and tyrannical regimes often rule in countries titled "Republic of the People of" around the world. While a title may not longer the strength it intends, its creation is backed by the pages of history and the irreversible presses of the times.

  __    
Agatha Tyche