Text 14347, 130 rader
Skriven 2010-05-05 12:00:20 av Johan Zwiekhorst (2:292/100)
  Kommentar till text 14346 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38)
Ärende: to enter the world of a strange purple jello
====================================================
Hi Maurice!

In your message to me, dated <Tuesday May 04 2010 22:13>, you wrote:

 >> The Holy Roman Empire is where Charles the Great (Carolus
 >> Magnus) became emperor of and expanded it to most of Europe.

 >MK: Sounds much like the Romans and given he was crowned Emperor of Rome
 >MK: after conquering Italy might at least give him claim to being a Roman
 >MK: despite that he wasn't born there.

I like to see the H.R.E. more as Germanic than Roman/Italian since it later
evolved to "Holy Romand Empire of the German Nation" (1512). From 800 (birth)
to 1806 (when Napoleon conquered most of it and that was the end; Germany rose
from its ashes), the H.R.E. was for a millennium the largest state Europe has
ever seen.

 >MK: See above.  Germania was part of the Roman Empire before Charles. The
 >MK: only real change was the Emperor of Rome in the latter part of his
 >MK: life, and that Rome remained the capital until long after his death,
 >MK: somewhere in the neighbourhood of the 1400's when Vienna became
 >MK: capital but then I think it started to be called the Austo-Hungarian
 >MK: Empire.

That's true. Rome was indeed the official capital of the H.R.E. until 1448 when
Vienna became the capital and remained so until the dissolvement in 1806. The
H.R.E. Emperors were crowned by the Pope, by the way. If the Pope didn't
sanction someone, he could not become Emperor. It was actually the Pope's
decision!

 >> refers to the Roman-Catholic Church.

 >MK: Also back then as opposed to the the Byzantine Empire centered in
 >MK: Constantinople which was the eastern part of the Roman Empire.  At the
 >MK: very least this would make the Holy Roman Empire the western part of
 >MK: the Roman Empire and with it's capital being Rome then it seems likely
 >MK: that they considered themselves Romans ... mind you with "Holy" tacked
 >MK: on front.

The 'Holy' means that it had the full support of the Pope and that its ONLY
religion (no religious tolerance in those days) was Roman-Catholicism.

 >> And Spain was never a part of the Holy Roman Empire,

 >MK: Not officially but if the monarchy of Spain is indeed a branch of the
 >MK: Habsburg family then there is the connection.

Both the monarchies were related, but that was true for most if not all of the
European monarchies. That didn't stop them from wielding bloody wars against
each other.
The most known connection is of course the HRE Emperor Charles V (himself the
first king of Spain) who's son became king Philip II of Spain. Charles V was
succeeded by Ferdinand I (from the house of Habsburg and his brother). Charles'
and Ferdinand's father was Philip "the handsome", Habsburg Archduke and Duke of
Burgundy.
As you can see: all of the royals of that time were "interbreeding". ;-)

Under Charles V, the HRE had the biggest surface area since Charles the Great,
since it now included the Spanish colonies in the Americas, the Carribean and
the Philippines in Asia.
There would never be such a vast empire until, probably, the current European
Union.

 >MK: Any break between the Roman Empire and the later Spanish kingdom
 >MK: would be due to the Moors.
 >MK: No?

Not exactly. AFAIK there has never been a break between Spain and the HRE
(probably because they didn't share any boundaries). When Spain was facing
Moors, they did get help from other Catholic nations because the Pope ordered
them to. The Pope was also the driving force after the crusades. In those days,
the Pope could command kings and emperors alike and they were very afraid not
to obey him. I'm sure Benedictus XVI would very much like to have only a
fraction of that power (not to mention that he could fornicate without
consequences). ;-)

 >> I like it quite a bit as a text processor.

 >MK: Here it is vim at the moment but am in the process of trimming the
 >MK: entire system down a notch and am probably going to switch to nano.
 >MK: After 20 years of vi this is going to require abandoning old habits
 >MK: which die hard.

You misunderstood: I meant wordprocessor, not text editor. As a plain text
editor in terminal sessions, I use joe. I never got quite the hang of vi and I
like joe much more than nano.

 >> What HAS the world come to? Win desktops are the norm!

 >MK: Not here thank goodness.

You mean at your house? In mine neither, but in the rest of the world Windows
is used in more than 95% of all desktops.

 >> Windows users will have to pay for that kind of security.

 >MK: Nah.  They just pirate everything.  ;-)

The best working kind of security has protection mechanisms that defeat
pirating.
Panda Internet Security, for instance, cannot be pirated. And their system is
so simple I'm surprised that no-one else thought of it.

 >MK: Not that it helps with security any but there is no accounting for
 >MK: logic with Windows users.  Is there?

I've always felt that the best way to deal with Windows is to click 'Start',
then 'Shut down'. :-)

 >> Only if you want to exchange documents

 >MK: Do you mean "need" and not "want"?  Want is simple; I don't.  :-)

Well, I need to for my work. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't bother with
it.
Currently I'm thinking Gnome Office works way better than OOo 3.2 and is much
more compact. So I'm very much tempted so simple uninstall OOo 3.2.
There's just one problem: I get the odd PPS/PPT/PPSX/PPTX PowerPoint
presentation via mail. OOo allows me to view what, but I know of no other
viewer for Linux. Do you?

Kind regards,

 ._|~/_

e-mail: johan@zwiekhorst.be_NOSPAM
web:    http://www.zwiekhorst.be_NOBOTS

--- EMMA v0.9b
 * Origin: Tripod BBS Belgium - bortaS bIr jablu'DI'reH QaQqu' nay' (2:292/100)