Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)

"Imperial" is ambiguous

Since "imperial" can mean either "of the Empire" or "of the Emperor" in English, shouldn't this page be called Emperor's Army? How do English-speaking historians deal with this? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they call it the "Imperial Army", but I'm still investigating it. BTW I understand why you moved this from Imperial Army (German Empire) to Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire), and considered that move myself, but felt it came too close to the Army of the Holy Roman Empire which also seems to have been called the Imperial Army in sources, although some stick to Reichsarmee. An alternative might be Imperial Army (Holy Roman Emperor) or Habsburg Army (which I've also seen, but not sure it's official). Let's do the research first... --Bermicourt (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong community opposition to this request. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) → Kaiserliche Armee (Holy Roman Empire) – This has been brought up before. The current title is ambiguous with the Army of the Holy Roman Empire (Reichsarmee). See Roeland Goorts, War, State, and Society in Liège, p. 129n: The term 'imperial army' refers to the 'Reichsarmee' and not the Austrian 'Kaiserliche Armee'. Of course, different scholars have different approaches, but 'imperial army' is the normal translation of Reichsarmee (see also Gagliardo). The proposed title mimics the German Wiki, keeping the disambiguator for clarity, although I'm not sure there is any other usage for this German term in English than this one. Srnec (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Raulois (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. Raulois (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose While this may be a more precise term for subject matter experts (I am making the assumption here that the nominator is correct) the use of untranslated German makes the title more ambiguous for the general English reader. If the key differentiator is this being Austrian, would "Austrian Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)" be a clearer title for an English audience? I have no preference for retaining the existing title or using a different English title, just not an untranslated one for an English audience. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, "Austrian Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)" would be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree. This is the English language Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  German is reserved for Nazis, I guess. Srnec (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons, although I can see the potential confusion between these two armies. Surely there must be an accepted or prevalent terminology among historians as this is not a new subject area. Bermicourt (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Interestingly a contemporary English-German dictionary (Ebers, 1798) translates Kaiserliche Armee as "Imperial Army" and "the Army of the Emperor" and Reichsarmee as "the Army of the Empire". This is echoed in a 21st century author (Hochedlinger, 2003) who says that "there were two armies linked to the Reich in some way, but nonetheless distinct. The first was the Imperial army proper (kaiserliche Armee), the Emperor's own standing army... The second force was the army of the Empire (Reichsarmee), the true army of the Reich..." The titles of the Wikipedia articles are pretty close to those. Bermicourt (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusion isn't potential. It's certain. I quoted a scholar saying the opposite in the nomination. The current title is unacceptable for this reason alone. "Army of the Holy Roman Emperor" is an interesting idea... good parallel to "Army of the Holy Roman Empire". Srnec (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. After two relists and three weeks since the last comment, there does not appear to be any consensus for this mvoe at this time.(non-admin closure)--estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) → Imperial Austrian Army (Holy Roman Empire) – The current title is worse than ambiguous, it is positively misleading. "Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)" most naturally brings to mind the Reichsarmee, which is normally called the "Imperial Army", not the "Army of the Holy Roman Empire", as in our article. According to Richard Bassett For God and Kaiser: The Imperial Austrian Army, 1619–1918 (Yale University Press, 2015), p. 11, the name Kaiserliche Armee (the basis of the English translation "Imperial Army") was coined in 1619. The name he uses in the title, Imperial Austrian Army, is the most appropriate, with the disambiguator left in place to indicate that this is about the period before 1806. Srnec (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. WPscatter ^t/_c 15:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title of this article has been discussed above and, for the same reasons, I believe this is the best English name. The current title is a translation of the Latin and German names for the army and the name that historians, contemporary and modern, use. It was never called the Imperial Austrian Army, a title which is misleading as it was formed for the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The current title makes this quite clear and the lede clears up any lingering confusion that the reader may have. Bermicourt (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't clear. It has never been clear. The issue was raised by Qwertyus within days of its creation (by you). Why do you think that the title of this article could not be applied just as well to the article on the Reichsarmee? The normal handling of Reichs- in English is to translate it "imperial" (in the context of the HRE). And I have cited English sources that do so and could cite more. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  We could change it to Imperial Army (Holy Roman Emperor), which would remove all doubt as to whose army it was, but calling it the Austrian Army seems to add to the confusion. Bermicourt (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Seems a little too subtle, but I would accept it as an improvement. Note that Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, has an entry for "Reichsarmee (imperial army)" in the index. Nothing on the Kaiserliche Armee. Wilson, Heart of Europe, has "Imperal Army (Reichsarmee)". Nothing on the Kaiserliche Armee, although he does have "Habsburg monarchy: army". Srnec (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not our fault that the "Reichsarmee" and "Kaiserliche Armee" seem synonymous. They seem synonymous in German too. Sometimes we have to live with the ambiguity because the originals were unimaginative. A closer translation might be "Emperor's army". But definitely not the proposed. Walrasiad (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The only natural reading of the title Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) is that the article is about the Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Empire. But it's not. That article is at Army of the Holy Roman Empire. This article is about an army that was not the empire's any more the Prussian army was. We have the current title because the article and title are literal translations from the German Wiki, not because of any reading of English sources. If editors are insistent on "Imperial Army" (for whatever reason), it must be disambiguated a different way. Srnec (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. My instinct would be to read "Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)" as being about the Imperial Army in (not of) the Holy Roman Empire. In other words, the Emperor's army, not the army of the HRE. Much like I'd expect the "Imperial Guard" would be the Emperor's guard, not every guardsman all the way to Pomerania. But I really don't see this is an improvement. Your proposal suggests it is just the Austrian sub-units, which is even more misleading. Walrasiad (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But why, when thinking of the Imperial Army in the Empire, would you not think of the Reichsarmee? Everything Reichs- gets translated "Imperial ___". I'm not saying that the Kaiserliche Armee can't be called the "Imperial Army", but you can't disambiguate it with the word "Empire". There was an actual Imperial Army of the Empire! As for the proposed title, it is based on the book cited. I am open to alternatives, but this army is often qualified as "Austrian" (for the same reason as the "Austrian" Netherlands). Srnec (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree there's a general ambiguity problem. But the proposed solution makes it worse, not better. "Austrian" means of Austria, the archduchy, not of the Emperor. Given that we have already named the other article "Army of the HRE", that liberates "Imperial Army" for use here. Any ambiguity is cleared up immediately in the lede. Not perfect, but better than suggesting it is limited to a sub-dominion. Traditional English translations use "Imperial Army". I have never seen your suggested term, particularly not for the earlier parts of the period covered (e.g. Thirty Years War), where dominions mattered a lot. "Austrian" may have been adopted later (later 18th Century) as a loose shorthand, but it is mostly used by foreigners (e.g. from the French point of view) and mostly as an alternative term for the Hapsburg family, not the emperor per se. But inside German territories, through the period covered here, "Austrian" means from Austria, and "Imperial" means of the Emperor. Walrasiad (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that we use a relatively rare term ("Army of the Holy Roman Emperor") for what is more normally called the "Imperial Army" cannot free up the latter term for use here. It is impossible to tell from the title of this article what it is actually about. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean "Army of the Holy Roman Empire" (Reichsarmee, Imperial Diet army)? The "Imperial Army" would would "Army of the Holy Roman Emperor" (Kaiserliche Armee, Imperial army proper). :) Even in German it is ambiguous. Unfortunately, it's an ambiguity we might have to live with as that is the common name. "Austrian" it definitely is not, and makes recognition even worse. Walrasiad (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Far too confusing when Army of the Holy Roman Empire exists. Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You linked to this article! Walrasiad (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanks Aza24 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This does not seem to be either the natural nor the most accurate name. Amusingly the lead of this very article does a good job of explaining why the change would be an inappropriate description of the formation which it is describing for much of its existence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think there is no problem with the current title? (For the record, I think the lead clearly justifies the proposed title.) Srnec (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to set up a false dichotomy? I feel that the current title is better than the current title, which is what this RfC is about. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I know that you do not think the proposal is an improvement. I am asking as a follow-up if you think the current title is fine or should be changed. Srnec (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! (What you have just asked is a completely different question to the one you asked me at 20:32.) I see no problem with the current title. It may be that someone could suggest tomorrow a title which I would agree was better, but I don't see why anyone should wrack their brain to think of one, given the non-problematic nature of what we have. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with the current title looks like an answer to the question I asked at 20:32 (Do you think there is no problem with the current title?). In any case, do you think that "Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)" could not refer to our "Army of the Holy Roman Empire"? Or do you think rather that this topic is the primary topic over and against the other? I am asking because I very much think the current title is so bad to make wracking one's brain over it worthwhile and it is clear that I am up against much greater opposition than I anticipated. I am not quite sure why nobody seems to see a big problem here. To me (based on my reading of RS), the title of this article indicates the topic of the other. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.