The History of Saxony: Every Year (911-2021)

The History of Saxony: Every Year (911-2021)

[@jml732]

Saxony: "... hmm it's too cold up here, I'll just gonna go further south and start all over again."

[@borisbrosowski6630]

Nope: it's colder in the east.... and before that they went west to found Anglosaxony.

[@jml732]

@@borisbrosowski6630 Or Mr. Realist, sorry that you don't know humour.

[@vendora8238]

@@jml732 Oh Mr. Humourist, sorry that you don't know reality.

[@jml732]

@@vendora8238 I live here and know my own home better than you, so I'll just gonna ignore you

[@vendora8238]

@@jml732 Well what a coincidence since I live right next to you

[@yagirlmegan984]

For those of you wondering why Lower Saxony is “lower” even though it’s further north than Saxony, it all has to do with elevation as Saxony more mountainous while Lower Saxony is flat. Therefore Saxony is higher and Lower Saxony is lower

[@ernstschmidt4725]

i always wondered why germany had several saxonies all over itself, this video kind of answered it

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

In any case, the one Saxony was really not good for Poland! Because early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German wikipeia link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This demostrates the confusion and the absurdity of the the Holy Romen Realm.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

By the way, early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for Poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German Wiki link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This indicates the confusion and the absurdity of the Holy Romen Realm.

[@magistermilitum1206]

​@@GreatPolishWingedHussarslmao by that time Poland was like a roasting chicken on a fire. Russia and Austria put Augustus of Saxony on the throne of Poland to use him as a puppet. Russia used Poland at this point to defeat Charles of Sweden you guys don't even know your own history

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@magistermilitum1206 You have no idea, because the negotiations with the Polish nobles were secret until the coronation and for that reason alone there could be absolutely no Russian and Austrian influence! When unfortunately the German Saxon Augustus II became the Polish king, the Polish king John III Sobieski was his predecessor on the Polish throne and in the days of the victor against the Ottoman John III Sobieski Poland was too strong for foreign influence. When unfortunately the German Saxon Augustus II became the Polish king, the Polish king John III Sobieski was his predecessor on the Polish throne and in the days of the victor against the Ottoman John III Sobieski Poland was too strong for foreign influence. But unfortunately, the Polish nobility made the mistake of electing this completely incompetent Saxon Augustus II as king. Therefore, your claim contradicts the historical facts that the German Saxon Augustus II came to the Polish throne through Russian or Austrian influence. I certainly did not claim that Poland was greatly weakened by the completely incompetent German Saxon Augustus II and that the negative influence of Russia on Poland was therefore increasing. But Austria was far too weak compared to Russia to have any influence on Poland. So I certainly know Polish history better than you!

[@elemperadordemexico]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars cool story, im not reading that

[@kylemohs8728]

2:15 Big Boi Saxony 3:04 Small Boi Saxony

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

By the way, early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for Poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German Wiki link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This indicates the confusion and the absurdity of the Holy Romen Realm.

[@DoSLG]

I think Saxe-Lauenburg deserves a bit more love tbh

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

By the way, early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for Poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German Wiki link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This indicates the confusion and the absurdity of the Holy Romen Realm.

[@DoSLG]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars what?

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@DoSLG You should make your question more precise!

[@DoSLG]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Why'd you create a full 6 paragraph essay under my one line comment about Saxe-Lauenburg. I'm not complaining, it's just not something I'd do with my Tuesday evening.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@DoSLG At least I'm always happy to receive additional information on the subject!

[@Fummy007]

1180 "look how they massacred my boy"

[@b.a.3673]

Gerhard Schröder was never Prime Minister of Free State of Saxony. he was Prime Minister of Lower Saxony. After him Sigmar Gabriel came. First Prime Minister of the Free State of Saxony was Kurt Biedenkopf.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

By the way, early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for Poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German Wiki link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This indicates the confusion and the absurdity of the Holy Romen Realm.

[@Courageous92]

Crazy how Hanover is originally Saxony

[@mrgopnik5964]

To everyone wondering what happened in 1180: this was around the time that emperor Frederick Barbarossa dissolved the stem-duchies. Those are more or less larger administrative regions, in which each smaller lord was under the suzerainty of the Duke. This did make the empire more organized, however the dukes eventually became so powerful, that there was a constant struggle for the imperial crown, since it was an elected position. Frederick dissolved the duchies, in order to centralize the realm (ironically enough), because it meant that from then on every lord would answer directly to the emperor, instead of his local duke. However, he failed to establish a hereditary monarchy, leading to the empire dissolving into the absolute mess we all know and love.

[@MsCwebb]

1180 looked like bit of a rough year for Saxony.

[@KrokLP]

What equal partition succession can do to a Saxony

[@BrutusAlbion]

@@KrokLP apparently Henry had a falling out with the Emperor who divided his lands in retribution. Bernard the third isn't his son, he was a distant claimant from another family line. But yeah partition is a hell of a thing my fellow CK player.

[@arnaldoenriquez6191]

​@BrutusAlbion I always did hate how the Lion got nailed solely because his family was too good with marrying for claims

[@mikado_m]

My favourite part was where 'friedrich the feisty' got replaced by 'friedrich the gentle' after only 4 years

[@hieratics]

It was nice that you put the royal pretenders after the end of the monarchy

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

By the way, early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for Poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German Wiki link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This indicates the confusion and the absurdity of the Holy Romen Realm.

[@MTanicAAA]

​@@GreatPolishWingedHussarsain't readin allat

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@MTanicAAA I really don't care what you read!

[@greatjoseon]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars did you really write 81 comments about this?

[@urianerreerre5005]

Saxe-Lauenburg just chilling cuz is the coolest saxony

[@Yora21]

Henry the Lion is somewhat famous around here as a really cool dude from the Middle Ages. I was never aware, that he basically got the old Duchy of Saxony destroyed at the end of his reign.

[@rafexrafexowski4754]

Not his fault, it was the emperor (Barbarossa) and his centralization efforts.

[@sharjiljafric-3184]

​@@rafexrafexowski4754It is at least partially Henry the lion's fault as he stopped participating in Emperor Frederick Barbarossa's campaigns.

[@charleshogshead1350]

Nice video

[@flameboy9034]

I always wondered about Saxony

[@othiem7458]

Unfortunately, there is a mistake: after 1989, Biedenkopf was Prime Minister of Saxony, not Schröder, who was Mayor of Hanover and later Chancellor...

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

The Normans, Plantagenets and Tudors deprived England of a Saxon dynasty since 1066. The Hannoverians and Saxe-Coburg dynasties gave us new Saxons.

[@senussi3781]

underrated

[@12tanuha21]

2:26 the fall of Henry the Lion

[@henriette6555]

Great

[@charleshogshead1350]

U could do someone of just Lower Saxony..

[@arnaldoenriquez6191]

Kinda weird that it was the title and law that dictated where Saxony was and not the land, like if we were to relocate to a different planet and then just call it earth as the old earth gets burned up from the Sun going Red Gaint mode

[@slamacful]

Does anybody know the name of the German song, which starts at 5:13 and finish at 8:10?

[@Bistle00]

It's "Glück auf mein Sachsenland"

[@py8554]

What happened in 1180 (and 1235) ??

[@alexanderkaspari8787]

In 1179/80, Heinrich der Löwe was deposed by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I because of his reckless and arrogant policy towards the Emperor and the other princes. Heinrich lost all of his lands. During the reign of Albrecht, the ruling line was divided, hence a big part of the territory was lost.

[@12tanuha21]

The fall of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria

[@user-mv7xi1ey4z]

What is about North Rhine-Westphalia? Because Westphalians were a part of Saxons too. And union with Duchy of Warsaw isn't shown

[@borisbrosowski6630]

Basically the real power in NRW lies in the Rhineland and the Rhinelanders are/were not Saxons but Frankish.

[@the__rock263]

There wasn't union with Duchy of Warsaw, there was with PLC.

[@the__rock263]

There was two Saxon kings on throne of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

[@user-mv7xi1ey4z]

@@borisbrosowski6630 but as for modern Free State of Saxony Saxons never lived there. It was land of Slavs-Lusatians and Thuringii

[@user-mv7xi1ey4z]

@@the__rock263 Saxon king Frederick Augustus I was a duke of Warsaw in 1807-1815 else

[@Ludovico476]

Sources of the map???

[@CartonsHistoricalMapping]

My once favorite Saxon stades is Ernestine Duchies.

[@magistermilitum1206]

Should done the history of Saxons.

[@Ozdoba267]

Piekne

[@L1M.L4M]

Schwärski

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

Czy to ma być po polsku? Mam nadzieję, że nie! Bo można tu napisać po angielsku jakim nieszczęściem była Saksonia dla Polski. Early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. His son Augustus III was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished.

[@Josephine_Gamerian]

Did someone khows the name of the song of 5:09?

[@matthewblack1595]

Did u find out

[@Josephine_Gamerian]

@@matthewblack1595 yes.

[@matthewblack1595]

@@Josephine_Gamerian what is the song called?

[@Bistle00]

​@@matthewblack1595 "Glück auf mein Sachsenland"

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

Westphalia and Eastphalia are Saxons too

[@Shthophyckq]

What happened in 1180?

[@PugalshishOfficial]

For future context, "gau" is an old German word for "district" .

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

As a Englishman I love my Saxon cousins in Germany. Im technically more Angle than Saxon but still Anglo-Saxon 😊 I love Saxony. But did any Angles stay behind in Germany?

[@theChaosKe]

Yes, some of them went south and settled in thuringia. These places are called "Engelsdörfer" (angle villages). We dont know the origins of the thuringians but some of them were angli apparently.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

@@theChaosKe absolutely great!

[@ZachRULES96]

Ah saxony the moving state

[@yoavboaz1078]

Correction: seaxe-lauenburg was partitioned in 1303

[@azazetka]

Шрëдер был премьером Нижней Саксонии, а не Саксонии

[@randomclass4653]

England : The Origins DLC

[@German_Empireball_Offical]

Sachsen - Anhalt

[@magistermilitum1206]

Bro Brunswick, vreden, bremen, hannover, oldenburg, hamburg, dietmarschen etc were still saxon, why did you exclude them? Why exclude them put saxe luneburg in the video, because kt has 'saxe' in its name? Lol..

[@Nilsina25]

Love sachsen

[@German_Empireball_Offical]

Niedersachsen

[@KRUTOYCHEL-sp8vu]

History of Saxony begin in 6th and 7th century

[@Alazarball]

3:01 Gott Segne Sachsenland (Saxon Anthem)

[@goodstuff8156]

Why does modern day Saxony look like Syria so much?

[@c.g.3700]

Because it does

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

Schleswig-Holsten and Hamburg is still a Saxon people even if the names of it isn't Saxon 😊

[@plrc4593]

8:33 - a moment, when men cry.

[@German_Empireball_Offical]

U Freistaat Sachsen

[@microwavegoesmhbmhbhmhhmhm5225]

Feudalism hits hard 😔

[@altiris6874]

Is this alt history?

[@pedofilcyborga9612]

No. This is history

[@affsoye456]

Any relationship with Anglo Saxons?

[@jml732]

Only Lower Saxony. Upper Saxony is just based on the personal property of the Saxon nobility, wich is culturally more High German.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

@@jml732 ever heard of Ostsiedlung? That's why there's Saxons in Saxony a early Drang nach Osten

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

@@jml732 so what, Saxon descent is absent non existent 0 blood in Germany or nearby?

[@user-du1gc5lo8b]

Damn they named a country sexony

[@lu0z9_the_I]

How about wes$EX

[@Punaparta]

@@lu0z9_the_I The greatest tragedy of the Anglo-Saxon period is that the presence of the Angles prevented the Saxons spreading to the north of their territory, forever ridding the world of the glorious region of Nosex.

[@user-du1gc5lo8b]

@@Punaparta England could’ve been called sexland

[@TheMaster4534]

@@Punaparta "Nosex" Sounds like Reddit

[@justinskirzenski]

@@Punaparta And then Alfred the Great yeeted the Saxons and named England after the Angles. Fr I would have loved a Sexland

[@glomibabel1894]

very very bad: where is saxony anhalt and old saxony?

[@urianerreerre5005]

Idk

[@c.g.3700]

You can see it at the end

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

Early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II was a catastrophe for Poland. Frederick Augustus I, however, named as King Augustus II of Poland. Incidentally, August dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for Poland's downfall. The son of King Jan Sobieski Jakob Sobieski, who was an opponent of Augustus I for the Polish crown , would certainly have been a better king. He demonstrated his military prowess in battles against the Ottomans and enjoyed an excellent education to become a king. He was smart. It was the first time that the son of a deceased Polish king was not chosen as his successor. With fatal consequences for Poland, because unfortunately the completely incompetent Augustus II became king of Poland instead of Jakob Sobieski. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. Friedrich August II, however, named as Polish King August III. The son of Augustus II was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus, Poland would not have perished. But the video is good for one thing, namely to show that the so-called Holy Roman Empire actually fell with the death of Kaiser Otto I. Because Baden and Württemberg were actually independent states over the centuries, like all the other German small states. In fact, the German small states were actually permanently at war with each other, so that a united state could not arise! 1000 years they killed each other. One of the highlights was the Thirty Years' War. But they also fought each other before and after Thirty Years' War. The areas inhabited by Germans were a patchwork of territories! Consisting of hundreds of smaller sub-units of principalities, bailiwicks, margraviates, lordships, free cities, baronies, duchies and even simple counties and bishoprics and other domains. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! Because the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but a complex of territories. The siege of Vienna in 1683 was also proof that the kaiser's title had no political significance. The kaiser title was only status without real political meaning! So the Holy Roman Empire was over the centuries without central authority! For example the so-called Kaiser Leopold could not order the other German states at the second siege of Vienna in 1683 to send troops to save his capital, for his capital was not recognized as the capital of the all other German states. Leopold's will was meaningless to the other Rulers of the other German small states. Only a few German states sent troops to support the Habsburgs. Because there was not enough support from the other German states and and the Habsburgs were too weak alone, so Leopold had to ask Polish Empire for help! Also these Germans of this small states often killed each other with the support of non-German allies. A completely ridiculous and stupid nation that was in a civil war for 1000 years and only managed to found a united German state in 1871. It was only in 1871 that the first permanent unified German state emerged. That is why the Germans are also known as the late nation. Because the first unified German state was only founded in 1871! Whereby the English term Holy Roman Empire is based on an incorrect translation and is actually wrong. The German term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" was also incorrectly translated into English as "Holy Roman Empire" and since then this wrong translation has been used incorrectly again and again. "Imperium" is empire in German not "Reich"! The term "Reich" is correctly explained in this German wikipedia link on the subject Reich (Territorium)! Quote from this German Wiki link translated: "Reich denotes the territory of a ruler, a state or, more generally, a politically organized community" So Reich is the same as realm. In German every kingdom can be called a "Reich"even if it is not an empire at all. The German word "Königreich" for kingdom actually contains the word Reich! König-Reich. Realm of Kings! So the correct translation is "Holy Romen Realm" and not "Holy Roman Empire"! Despite it still, ignorant fools use the wrong term "Holy Roman Empire". An alternative would be to use the German proper name in English. So Holy Roman Reich! This is also done in other contexts. As for example with the term the "Third Reich". In the meantime, people also speak of the "Fourth Reich" when one wants to polemically criticize Germany's attempts to dominate in Europe. I have already read texts where the term "Reich Progrom Night" was used. In the wiki link to the "Reichswehr" there is talk of "Reich Defense" as a translation. The same also applies to the wiki link to the "Reichsmarine" there is also the talk of "Reich Navy" as a translation. There are certainly other examples that show that the term "Reich" is used as a German proper name in English. So it would actually make sense to do this principally in order to avoid this translation error of wrong Holy Roman Empire! So it would be correct Holy Roman Reich or Holy Roman Realm! By the way, at most, one could call this patchwork of territories a military alliance. But even that is actually wrong, because within a military alliance the allies do not fight each other all the time! The various German states also founded alliances, which also makes it clear that the Holy Romen Realm did not in fact exist! For example the Rheinische Allianz or the Welfenallianz or the Hildesheimer Allianz or the Kurrheinian alliance. It is interesting that these alliances could also include non-German states. For example was Sweden member of the Rheinische Allianz and France too! This indicates the confusion and the absurdity of the Holy Romen Realm.

[@dominikblek9546]

Pomerania is problem