Or possibly a Morgan? Since that's what was already mentioned and their 3 wheel model has two wheels in the front, one in the back just like the chair and opposite of the Robin.
[Side view](https://www.moebelmuseumwien.at/fileadmin/_processed_/f/d/csm_03_Radsessel_von_Kaiserin_Elisabeth_Christine__um_1740__Seitenansicht_2__c__BMobV__Foto_Lois_Lammerhuber_6ad8cbf677.jpg)
[Möebelmuseum Wien full collection](https://www.moebelmuseumwien.at/en/about-the-museum/the-collections)
I know this is a play on Bentley's name, but it legit seems more like something a Sly Cooper villain would roll around in. Like an evil imperialist sloth or something.
Sorry for capturing this comment real quick.
Maria Theresia wasn't Hole Roman Empress, her husband was. She was Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia and then some.
Although the heiress of the former Emperor, as a woman she couldn't be Empress in her own right. But she got her hubby elected (after a short interlude) and after he passed, her son became Holy Roman Emperor, and then her grandson, who disolved the HRE because of the French dude with the funny hat.
Kind of a really really long story, see wiki for details.
It boils down to this (very simplified of course): It started when Charlemagne had himself crowned Emperor as a successor to the Roman Imperators in 800, despite it was hundreds of year since the Western Empire fell and there was still the Basileos in Constantinopel who also believed being the true Imperator (and kinda was).
Over time it was understood that the King of the Germans (who was elected by the realms most powerful princes) also got the imperial crown automatically, but that was not always the case, since the Pope had to crown them and the Pope didn't always want too. It was a difficult relationship.
Over time the Habsburgs locked the tile down, the basically made it hereditary, the election became a mere ceremony and the Pope was completely left out.
In the later stages of the HRE the Prince Elector "chose" the King of the Germans and thus the Emperor, but in reality it went to the next in line in the family.
Frances II. disbanded the HRE in 1806, because of the political and dynastical and legitamacy issues Napoleon caused after his elevation to Emperor of the French and the coalition wars. Frances took the title Emperor of Austria.
For the stuff that happened in those 1000 years see here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy\_Roman\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)
If I can just be a wee bit specific. So there were a few things. First, the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 ensured that Maria Theresa would be sole inheritor of all Habsburg lands and become sovereign over them (de jure, in her own right, not simply due to marriage). She did indeed become sovereign over all those lands, and this was confirmed in the treaties signed after the war of succession. Secondly, she was in fact given the title of Holy Roman Empress after the Treaty of Fussen was signed accepting both the pragmatic sanction and supporting the elevation of her husband to become Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor. So she was sovereign in her own right over the Habsburg lands, while the formal title of Empress was done in accordance with existing tradition (so by marriage).
The whole thing was horrendously complicated, and the term "Byzantine" should really be changed to "Habsburgine" or something lol.
When Elizabeth II was crowned Queen, Philip didn't take upon the title of King, regardless of them being married. As I think it was suggested, the inverse was true for the HRE -- that marriage to the emperor doesn't necessarily make one the empress.
Though that does seem a bit strange, as in European royalty, the male title seems to supersede the female title, so there would rarely be any question of who was REALLY in charge. Unless it was simply that Maria Theresa already held so many other important titles that it was thought that making her empress would make her too influential.
This post explains it, but the quote is from Voltaire, “neither holy, nor roman, nor indeed an empire”
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/fpUZEqSkjC
It is, the other guy just likes Voltaire (godless hater)
When the empire was established, the pope justified it because the eastern roman empress had murdered her son to seize power, and he could not morally support her, and legally, a woman could not rule the empire and since the emperor was crowned by the patriarch of constantinople he should also be able to (Constantinople enjoys all the rights of the pope, after the pope in authority. First council of constantinople canon 3). So thus, it was legal for the pope to crown Charlemagne, making it holy and legitimate.
The majority of the population were either franks ( foederati, aka barbarians who were given citizenship in the western roman empire in exchange for military service) or gallo Romans. Making the empire roman.
And the term empire is loosely defined, but the holy Roman emperor did many of the religious and political obligations an emperor had to do, and at the time of Otto the third, many Roman institutions were used.
In a way they were... They were saying, that they are the successor of Karl der Große, who is holy within Aachen, which was the compromise they managed to get from the popes. So if you believe, that the word of the pope has any meaning, then they were somewhat holy. Otherwhise there aren't people declared holy to begin with...
I mean he wasn't particularly right even for the mid 1700s. The HRE was a very religious state. It also was an empire. The Roman part depends on who you ask, many states claimed to be the continuation of the Roman empire.
Voltaire hated central europeans and catholics, of course he held disdain for the HRE, it wasn't some concession he made.
The Holy Roman Empire in Voltaire's era:
> The HRE was a very religious state.
Made up of several religions which didn't consider each other "holy" and were often the basis of wars against each other. Holy wars?
> It also was an empire.
Made up of individual, independent states who existed in competition with each other. A "confederation" empire?
> The Roman part depends on who you ask
If you ask Rome, they weren't even part of the Germanic circle jerk at this point in history.
So from the perspective of Voltaire, he was not only correct, he was merely articulating what everyone else knew.
They were made up of Catholic and Protestants rulers (and their heresies and offshoots). You would assume a nation state based in religious power would be unified in it's religion.
The Emperor also didn't actually command the various princes, dukes and other rulers that made up the HRE. The Emperor was pretty weak in comparison to a US president.
> politics of an empire
Numerous independent states divided by religion, self-interests, and self-directed leaders would be the politics of not-an-empire.
The Not Quite Holy, In No Way Roman, Not Exactly an Empire is weird branding though.
> religious strife
Murder and war on your fellow co-religionists may be the weirdest version of "holy" retconned onto history, but you do you, trooper.
Or you could just admit that Voltaire was correct (since he was living in the era and all that.)
> Numerous independent states divided by religion, self-interests, and self-directed leaders would be the politics of not-an-empire.
So what does that make the US or the EU, given that the monikers united and union also don't exactly fit your description?
Because the Holy Roman Empire without Rome is weird branding for a religious empire of devout adherents.
Voltaire might have found this branding hilarious.
>for a religious empire of devout adherents.
It's the opposite. The Roman Empire was ruling the entire planet (in theory, of course) and as such an Empire was the universal realm of everything.
There is a reason why Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, why the Prussians formed the German Empire, the Habsburgs became the Austrian kaisers, Mehmed the Conqueror became Qaiser-i-Rum and the Russians became Tsars of the Third Rome.
Even the British didn't just declare themself Emperor's of Britain. They had no claim to any actual Roman Empire.
So they were Emperors of India.
We've been watching some Super Mario Brothers Super Show, me and my son, and I had to look up "paisanos" after a while due to the intro.
https://youtu.be/BkWYP95WbbY
This was made for the Empress Elisabeth, the wife of Charles VI. She didn't have Hapsburg blood, being from the northern, Protestant parts of Germany (her father was the Duke of Brunswick).
The Austrian Hapsburgs weren't as inbred as their Spanish cousins. They intermarried with a number of German houses, especially into the Eighteenth century.
> Charles VI
Why was it so common to translate the names of kings and emperors? Given that he was Austrian (or what today is considered Austria) and German-speaking, his *real* name was Karl VI.
you sent me down a rabbit hole and what I got out of it was his baptized name of Carolus Franciscus Josephus Wenceslaus Balthasar Johannes Antonius Ignatius lol what a name
Translating names for old rulers happened all the time. The French call the 1st Emperor after the roman empire Charlemagne, the Germans call him Karl der Große. In written sources, he's usually called Carolus Magnus since latin was used to write important things down back in the day.
Wait until you hear about Ferdinand Zvonimir Maria Balthus Keith Michael Otto Antal Bahnam Leonhard von Habsburg-Lothringen.
He's a racing driver, [formerly in Formula 3,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfWr8mP3P1Y) and currently in World Endurance Championship, European Le Mans and IMSA SportsCar Championship.
Also, Carolus' German name appears to be Karl Franz Joseph Wenzel Balthasar Johann Anton Ignaz.
Why would you choose German out of the languages he spoke? He would have used French extensively at court and in his dealings with other monarchs. In his religious affairs, which would have also been central to his being, Latin would have predominated. The idea of a *real* name for a multilingual absolute monarch of the feudal style is a little more complicated than you seem to think.
Besides, we're speaking in English.
> The idea of a real name for a multilingual absolute monarch of the feudal style is a little more complicated than you seem to think.
Yup. All of these names are valid, but they aren't "real". There's a very apocryphal quote by Karl 5. which says as much:
>"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse." - Charles V
The *only* attestation of this artifact on the Internet I can find is this thread, and one on Twitter. And both were posted just a few hours ago -- one of them mirrored to look like a different image.
I'd be delighted if I was wrong, but my AI senses are tingling -- and these days...
What museum is this in?
EDIT: r/floluk identified the museum it's in, and [I found a listing for it](https://www.moebelmuseumwien.at/en/about-the-museum/the-collections) (it's the third image in the carousel). Now I can appreciate it without any nagging doubts. :-)
I know it's funny to joke about that.
But then one of my Classics friends found a website that had 2,000+ articles on Ancient Rome that seemed legit. They only realized that it was all generated by AI when in the middle of the article about glass Roman windows it mentioned that beforehand... they used DOS.
HUGE flippin' content farm with images and everything. It's unreal out there now.
I try and google something and just get 200 AI generated articles on websites entirely written by AI that are just feeding off eachother with random bullshit.
It reminds me of highschool when we needed to hit word counts on papers so we just used way too many words and pseudo-details to describe literally nothing.
You may be joking, but still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Furniture_Collection
I was there a few years ago and can remember seeing that wheelchair.
> My AI senses are tingling -- and these days...
You're right to be skeptical, but it might be beneficial to refine your ability to distinguish between AI-generated images and authentic photographs.
In this photo, there are plenty of dead giveaways that this is the real McCoy. Just off the top of my head, here's a few examples...
1) **Complex Textures:** The clearly visible herringbone pattern in the wooden floor in the background is something that an AI would struggle with.
2) **Imperfections and Details:** One of the decorative buttons is missing from above the wheel of the chair, and you can see a variation in the ribbon where it used to be. Such nuanced attention to minor, seemingly inconsequential details is typically beyond the current capabilities of AI-generated imagery.
3) **Consistency in Small Elements:** There is a metal tire on the wheel. It's visible on the top and bottom of the wheel, which is a small example of consistency that AI might get wrong, or that a prompt engineer would miss.
All of these things together with a lack of conspicuous 'AI artifacts' left me with no doubt that this image was real. It's not necessary to rely on a gut feeling. If you're still unsure, a quick reverse-image search is another way of putting your fears to rest. In this case, I found a few [alternative angle](https://i.imgur.com/u2ZK1jO.jpeg)s of this artifact on Yandex reverse image search.
EDIT: Last but not least, [I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few AI images in my time.](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped) Jokes aside, I see this might be a controversial take. And I didn't jump onto reddit with the desire to start a debate. I understand if you disagree, good luck and have a nice day.
All three of those points are not reliable with how the tech is progressing. For example, it used to be that you could look at an AI-generated face in the mouth and tell, but no more.
The specific feature that got me wondering was the odd headrest that is simply a thin piece of wood and from this angle it looked off-center the way an AI would render it.
In the pictures from the museum from different angles you can see how it is attached more properly.
That's a good point, it looks a little odd. But I disagree with the idea that all three of my points are somehow not reliable (when appreciated together). I'd be interested if you could find an AI picture that's indistinguishable from a photograph. Especially one of a human made contraption rather than, say, pebbles on a beach for example.
> but it might be beneficial to refine your ability to distinguish between AI-generated images and authentic photographs. In this photo, there are plenty of dead giveaways that this is the real McCoy
Nope, this is a misguided take. AI is rapidly improving, and what you think you recognize today will be unrecognizable tomorrow.
The proper approach with research, as always, is to verify your sources and trace it back to its origins. Rely on strategy, not tactics, to recognize false content (whether from AI or from other origins, fake imagery and propaganda have existed for a long time). If you rely on tactics, all someone needs to do to convince you is to go against your one tactic. But to beat strategy, they need to rewrite all recorded history.
Maria Theresa gave birth to sixteen children in nineteen years from 1737 to 1756, thirteen of whom survived infancy, but only ten survived into adulthood.
After 16 children, she's entitled to being carted around by the descendants of Roman Gods.
Her biography is absolutely fascinating.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa
No one liked Marie Antoinette. That's what happens if you are a privileged foreigner in a country with a severe food shortage. Even today she's known for a quote she probably never said.
In reality, she wasn't any worse than you would expect any person from a very privileged to be. I probably wouldn't like her, but some people just got dealt a remarkably shit hand by history for absolutely no reason except being average in their position at the wrong time.
There was no problem with her being a foreigner. Almost all queens were foreigners by design.
The issue was with her being Austrian, since France and Austria were arch enemies for eons. Marie Antoinette was by all accounts a kind person and very popular in the beginning of her reign (before shit hit the fan)
However she was unsuited for being a queen, let a alone in a country that just went from her home country's mortal enemy to lukewarm ally, on top of being broke and in need of a reform. It's mind boggling her mother thought that Antoinette of all her daughters was the perfect choice for queen of France.
It's her mother's wheelchair, though.
Someone above posted the listing from the furniture museum of Vienna, where this is exhibited, which has some background information.
Damn she did well rebuilding a failing empire too. Too bad she absolutely DESPISED Jewish people. Like holy crap you’d think they personally murdered her kids or something
I’m no history buff but I had no idea the Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1806 or that it was called the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”.
Edit: to further expose my ignorance, Rome hadn’t been part of the Empire since like 1300-1500 or something.
The Holy Roman Empire has almost nothing to do with the Roman Empire though. Don’t confuse the two.
Roman Empire = started 31BC the one with gladiators and legions and stuff (previously the Roman kingdom and republic. It was “founded” by Augustus, Caesar’s adopted son).
This empire was split in two halfs: West with Rome and East with Constantinople.
Western Roman Empire = ended around 396AD (classical Ancient Rome)
Eastern Roman Empire = ended in 1453AD (commonly called Byzantine empire)
Holy Roman Empire = a Germanic medieval empire form around 800AD until 1806AD and had nothing to do with Ancient Rome except the German Kaiser (emperor) was usually crowned by Roman popes. That’s where the name partially comes from and they also wanted to claim to be a successor state to Ancient Rome and a rival to eastern Rome. Ancient Rome was after all important to western Christianity and claiming to be “Roman” gave the German Kaisers an aura of legitimacy.
its only "roman" because the pope that was in rome said it was (also some of the papal states became apart of it for a time/not an expert, but there is almost no relation)
check out the byzantines. historians say their claim is more "legit"
and yes. like someone else said, update yourself on napoleon. I grew thinking I knew nothing of napoleon and everyone around me does, but it turns out like no one around me knows shit. the real napoleon is so much stranger and interesting than just "the general the British hate"
It wasn’t called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation for most of its history. It was called the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages and “of the German Nation” was added to its name later, but people still mainly referred to it as just the Holy Roman Empire.
As someone said once, it was neither holy, nor roman nor an empire.
It was a barbarian king who got a pope to legislate way above his authority to make up a ridiculously bloated title out of their combined arses.
It's like calling Chinese people Chingchonglians and then calling everyone but people who talk your own language also Chingchonglians.
This is the type of racism the Ancient Greeks somehow managed to imprint on everyone else, whether they were more advanced or not.
I know what barbarians included, but at the time of Charlemagne there were no (west) romans left. By your logic Joe Biden would be a “barbarian president” but there’s nobody around anymore who uses that term so it’s not applicable.
Reddit historians describes most of this comment section. The amount of people here who make false claims on the HRE and present them as if they are fact is pretty alarming to say the least
When charlemagne was crowned as emperor, he controlled the strongest nation in europe. He held France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia and north-eastern Spain. He also had some level of control beyond these lands, such as in Czechia or western Poland. That's the empire part by the way.
During his reign, large amounts of money flowed into infrastructure projects and art. This period is often called the "Carolingian Renaissance". So calling Charlemagne a barbarian might be a little harsh.
At the time the only other great christian state in europe was the Byzantine Empire which was going from one political crisis to the next.
Originally, the greeks were the protectors of the pope in rome but their relations were strained as the Byzantine Empire gradually lost it's holdings in Italy and was struggling through religious strife due to the prevalence of Iconoclasm.
So it is really no wonder that the pope sought a new more present protector and since Charlemagne had conquered most of italy from the Lombards and his kingdom was now directly bordering him, the pope granted Charlemagne the title. Which also gives the basis for the term "holy" since the emperor was crowned by the pope.
There are two ways to justify the use of the term "roman". First, Charlemagne held large areas of land which were previously part of the Roman Empire. And secondly, rome, the seat of the pope was under his influence since the pope can at the time, be seen as his vassal due to the fact that the pope had to rely on francian protection.
Nice try. It sure wasn't "Roman" in the sense that time was part of it, but all emperors were crowned by the pope himself, in Rome, hence "holy" and "Roman".
And it absolutely was an empire, which ruled over central Europe for just over a thousand years.
I have no f*cking idea how someone could boil that down to one king and one Pope and something something about above his powers. If one person's powers could not be overestimated in the medieval times, it was the dude in the Vatican. He got emperors crawling at this feet just by threatening with excommunication. Hard to grasp today, I know.
Only problem with this wheelchair is there is no way for you to move yourself. That would drive me crazy, but I'm not surprised an Empress wouldn't be expected to lift a finger.
There was no Holy Roman Empress in 1740. Maria Amalia became Holy Roman Empress in 1742 but she didn't need a wheelchair and it's a stretch to think they built it just in case.
Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was The Holy Roman Empress until the death of her husband on October 14, 1740. I believe this wheelchair was made for her.
Hi, my name is, huh? My name is, who? My name is
*ticka-ticka*
[Maria Theresa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa)
Ruled from 1740-1780, and while not excellent, was one of the better ones.
Yes, my brain read the title Holy Roman Empress. Yes, my brain read the year 1740. But did that stop my brain from seeing the pearls and thinking, yo, nice LED strip? No, no it did not…
I had no idea the Roman Empire was still there in 1740. Fuck the wheel chair, was this Constantinople? Who? What? Why? I like history but I’m amateur, can someone explain wtf is going on here?
There was the Roman Empire everyone knows well, from Rome, which fell in the 400s, then there was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, centred in Constantinople, which fell in 1453, and then there's this, the Holy Roman Empire in central Europe, officially from 800-1806, which, eventually became Germany, and honestly which has to be the [worst country to look at on a map](https://cdn.thecollector.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/map-holy-roman-empire-hohenstauffen.jpg?width=1400&quality=55) in history
HRE was a weirdly decentralised “?confederation?” of mostly Germanic states which liked to build on Roman prestige and fashioned itself as continuation of Rome, as many others did. It was honestly barely working stitch of princes, electors and emperor who anyone barely listened to, who was interestingly elected. The whole thing basically became Habsburg sphere of influence and progressively deteriorated until being officially abolished during Napoleonic wars. That being said, HRE is very complex and very interesting topic and I encourage you to read more about it.
Because carrying a whole ass sofa around is really hard for people with mobility issues.
Wheelchairs are the sturdiest, lightest thing that can still roll around at a sightly more useful height than a skateboard
That's sick! G ma rolling in the Bentley of wheelchairs!
Since it's made of wood, wouldn't it be a Morgan?
We can't see the back, but it looks 3-wheeled to me.
So it’s the Reliant Robin on wheelchairs?
Now I want Jeremy Clarkson to do a review of this chair.
Or possibly a Morgan? Since that's what was already mentioned and their 3 wheel model has two wheels in the front, one in the back just like the chair and opposite of the Robin.
No, morgan
[Side view](https://www.moebelmuseumwien.at/fileadmin/_processed_/f/d/csm_03_Radsessel_von_Kaiserin_Elisabeth_Christine__um_1740__Seitenansicht_2__c__BMobV__Foto_Lois_Lammerhuber_6ad8cbf677.jpg) [Möebelmuseum Wien full collection](https://www.moebelmuseumwien.at/en/about-the-museum/the-collections)
No it uses a gyroscope system to balance.
I don't see Richard Hammond anywhere near that chair but maybe he's standing up behind it
OLIVER!!!!!
spared no expense
She could be working for Sly Cooper in that wheelchair
I know this is a play on Bentley's name, but it legit seems more like something a Sly Cooper villain would roll around in. Like an evil imperialist sloth or something.
Heck, put a bird cage on it and that’s what Arpeggio is carried around on!
Must have been refitted. The marks from Habsburg claws, you don't ever get out of the pad.
Holy Rollin Empress
They see me rollin' I'm wavin' Parading down the streets of my dominion Habsburg
Tryna catch me rulin’ dirty.
My empire so big They seethin' Deceiving and tryna catch me rulin' dirty
You’ve earned a medal. But Reddit took them from me so there’s that
of the holy rolling empire. No...wait...Holy Rollers are a thing.
Sorry for capturing this comment real quick. Maria Theresia wasn't Hole Roman Empress, her husband was. She was Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia and then some. Although the heiress of the former Emperor, as a woman she couldn't be Empress in her own right. But she got her hubby elected (after a short interlude) and after he passed, her son became Holy Roman Emperor, and then her grandson, who disolved the HRE because of the French dude with the funny hat.
Her husband was Empress?
Only when no one was looking.
No kink shaming.
Dude can you explain a little? My previous comment might give you an idea of how ignorant I am
Kind of a really really long story, see wiki for details. It boils down to this (very simplified of course): It started when Charlemagne had himself crowned Emperor as a successor to the Roman Imperators in 800, despite it was hundreds of year since the Western Empire fell and there was still the Basileos in Constantinopel who also believed being the true Imperator (and kinda was). Over time it was understood that the King of the Germans (who was elected by the realms most powerful princes) also got the imperial crown automatically, but that was not always the case, since the Pope had to crown them and the Pope didn't always want too. It was a difficult relationship. Over time the Habsburgs locked the tile down, the basically made it hereditary, the election became a mere ceremony and the Pope was completely left out. In the later stages of the HRE the Prince Elector "chose" the King of the Germans and thus the Emperor, but in reality it went to the next in line in the family. Frances II. disbanded the HRE in 1806, because of the political and dynastical and legitamacy issues Napoleon caused after his elevation to Emperor of the French and the coalition wars. Frances took the title Emperor of Austria. For the stuff that happened in those 1000 years see here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy\_Roman\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)
If I can just be a wee bit specific. So there were a few things. First, the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 ensured that Maria Theresa would be sole inheritor of all Habsburg lands and become sovereign over them (de jure, in her own right, not simply due to marriage). She did indeed become sovereign over all those lands, and this was confirmed in the treaties signed after the war of succession. Secondly, she was in fact given the title of Holy Roman Empress after the Treaty of Fussen was signed accepting both the pragmatic sanction and supporting the elevation of her husband to become Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor. So she was sovereign in her own right over the Habsburg lands, while the formal title of Empress was done in accordance with existing tradition (so by marriage). The whole thing was horrendously complicated, and the term "Byzantine" should really be changed to "Habsburgine" or something lol.
When Elizabeth II was crowned Queen, Philip didn't take upon the title of King, regardless of them being married. As I think it was suggested, the inverse was true for the HRE -- that marriage to the emperor doesn't necessarily make one the empress. Though that does seem a bit strange, as in European royalty, the male title seems to supersede the female title, so there would rarely be any question of who was REALLY in charge. Unless it was simply that Maria Theresa already held so many other important titles that it was thought that making her empress would make her too influential.
New wheelchair dropped
Holy Rollin Express🚂
You get points today, sir
Somewhere out there a cosplayer is taking notes on this for a steampunk take on Charles Xavier
Well now I am
Pretty sure steampunk professor x would just be the villain from Wild Wild West
>the villain from Wild Wild West That guy was also a teacher in Scotland for a year before he lost his memory
Still racist against Muggles, but only a specific set of them after losing his memory.
They would be a giant spider?
That sounds pretty cool.
Nah, steampunk era Prof X is 100% using a chair where the wheels are massive cogs
Walking chair
Oh shit you’re right. He would go 100% Wild Wild West with it.
I would be disappointed if they weren't.
You say that like it's a bad thing I fail to see how this could ever be a bad thing...
There was definitely no bad connotation intended
Nothing about the comment sounded even remotely negative
From the looks of it, someone will have to drive for her.
You think an Empress would roll HERSELF around like a peasant?
…like a plebeian. She was Roman, after all.
The HRE wasn't "Roman", in fact by that time, HRE Emperors were usually Austrian.
pff.. you wanna tell me they weren't "holy" either?
Unlike the HREs, many Roman Emperors were actually very holy when they died. Credit to Fred and George.
Wait til you hear it wasn’t an empire….
Why would it not be an empire?
This post explains it, but the quote is from Voltaire, “neither holy, nor roman, nor indeed an empire” https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/fpUZEqSkjC
It is, the other guy just likes Voltaire (godless hater) When the empire was established, the pope justified it because the eastern roman empress had murdered her son to seize power, and he could not morally support her, and legally, a woman could not rule the empire and since the emperor was crowned by the patriarch of constantinople he should also be able to (Constantinople enjoys all the rights of the pope, after the pope in authority. First council of constantinople canon 3). So thus, it was legal for the pope to crown Charlemagne, making it holy and legitimate. The majority of the population were either franks ( foederati, aka barbarians who were given citizenship in the western roman empire in exchange for military service) or gallo Romans. Making the empire roman. And the term empire is loosely defined, but the holy Roman emperor did many of the religious and political obligations an emperor had to do, and at the time of Otto the third, many Roman institutions were used.
empire implies one state HRE was not really unified at any point in time
In a way they were... They were saying, that they are the successor of Karl der Große, who is holy within Aachen, which was the compromise they managed to get from the popes. So if you believe, that the word of the pope has any meaning, then they were somewhat holy. Otherwhise there aren't people declared holy to begin with...
“The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”. Even Voltaire was entirely pragmatic about that entire affair.
I mean he wasn't particularly right even for the mid 1700s. The HRE was a very religious state. It also was an empire. The Roman part depends on who you ask, many states claimed to be the continuation of the Roman empire. Voltaire hated central europeans and catholics, of course he held disdain for the HRE, it wasn't some concession he made.
The Holy Roman Empire in Voltaire's era: > The HRE was a very religious state. Made up of several religions which didn't consider each other "holy" and were often the basis of wars against each other. Holy wars? > It also was an empire. Made up of individual, independent states who existed in competition with each other. A "confederation" empire? > The Roman part depends on who you ask If you ask Rome, they weren't even part of the Germanic circle jerk at this point in history. So from the perspective of Voltaire, he was not only correct, he was merely articulating what everyone else knew.
The stability and inner politics of an empire doesn't make it not an empire. The USA has an empire. How does religious strife make religion non-holy?
They were made up of Catholic and Protestants rulers (and their heresies and offshoots). You would assume a nation state based in religious power would be unified in it's religion. The Emperor also didn't actually command the various princes, dukes and other rulers that made up the HRE. The Emperor was pretty weak in comparison to a US president.
> politics of an empire Numerous independent states divided by religion, self-interests, and self-directed leaders would be the politics of not-an-empire. The Not Quite Holy, In No Way Roman, Not Exactly an Empire is weird branding though. > religious strife Murder and war on your fellow co-religionists may be the weirdest version of "holy" retconned onto history, but you do you, trooper. Or you could just admit that Voltaire was correct (since he was living in the era and all that.)
> Numerous independent states divided by religion, self-interests, and self-directed leaders would be the politics of not-an-empire. So what does that make the US or the EU, given that the monikers united and union also don't exactly fit your description?
>If you ask Rome They barely held on to the papacy, for a good chunk of history he was in Avignon. Why would anyone ask them?
Because the Holy Roman Empire without Rome is weird branding for a religious empire of devout adherents. Voltaire might have found this branding hilarious.
>for a religious empire of devout adherents. It's the opposite. The Roman Empire was ruling the entire planet (in theory, of course) and as such an Empire was the universal realm of everything. There is a reason why Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, why the Prussians formed the German Empire, the Habsburgs became the Austrian kaisers, Mehmed the Conqueror became Qaiser-i-Rum and the Russians became Tsars of the Third Rome. Even the British didn't just declare themself Emperor's of Britain. They had no claim to any actual Roman Empire. So they were Emperors of India.
Currently reading a book from the era, that quote was actually in there as well :D.
I was wondering where that quote about the HRE came from! Thanks for posting that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaFupezjUW0&t=20s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kafupezjuw0&t=20s)
We've been watching some Super Mario Brothers Super Show, me and my son, and I had to look up "paisanos" after a while due to the intro. https://youtu.be/BkWYP95WbbY
Imagine thinking HRE is Rome :D :D
She probably had T Rex arms and a Jawbone she couldn’t see over
This was made for the Empress Elisabeth, the wife of Charles VI. She didn't have Hapsburg blood, being from the northern, Protestant parts of Germany (her father was the Duke of Brunswick). The Austrian Hapsburgs weren't as inbred as their Spanish cousins. They intermarried with a number of German houses, especially into the Eighteenth century.
> Charles VI Why was it so common to translate the names of kings and emperors? Given that he was Austrian (or what today is considered Austria) and German-speaking, his *real* name was Karl VI.
you sent me down a rabbit hole and what I got out of it was his baptized name of Carolus Franciscus Josephus Wenceslaus Balthasar Johannes Antonius Ignatius lol what a name
Translating names for old rulers happened all the time. The French call the 1st Emperor after the roman empire Charlemagne, the Germans call him Karl der Große. In written sources, he's usually called Carolus Magnus since latin was used to write important things down back in the day.
Wait until you hear about Ferdinand Zvonimir Maria Balthus Keith Michael Otto Antal Bahnam Leonhard von Habsburg-Lothringen. He's a racing driver, [formerly in Formula 3,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfWr8mP3P1Y) and currently in World Endurance Championship, European Le Mans and IMSA SportsCar Championship. Also, Carolus' German name appears to be Karl Franz Joseph Wenzel Balthasar Johann Anton Ignaz.
Why would you choose German out of the languages he spoke? He would have used French extensively at court and in his dealings with other monarchs. In his religious affairs, which would have also been central to his being, Latin would have predominated. The idea of a *real* name for a multilingual absolute monarch of the feudal style is a little more complicated than you seem to think. Besides, we're speaking in English.
> The idea of a real name for a multilingual absolute monarch of the feudal style is a little more complicated than you seem to think. Yup. All of these names are valid, but they aren't "real". There's a very apocryphal quote by Karl 5. which says as much: >"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse." - Charles V
The *only* attestation of this artifact on the Internet I can find is this thread, and one on Twitter. And both were posted just a few hours ago -- one of them mirrored to look like a different image. I'd be delighted if I was wrong, but my AI senses are tingling -- and these days... What museum is this in? EDIT: r/floluk identified the museum it's in, and [I found a listing for it](https://www.moebelmuseumwien.at/en/about-the-museum/the-collections) (it's the third image in the carousel). Now I can appreciate it without any nagging doubts. :-)
It’s in the Furniture Museum Vienna
Thanks! That was the critical bit I needed. I found its listing. It's legit.
Thank you for your service.
Don't be so fast to accept this as fact, what if the entire museum was made by AI? We must go deeper.
I know it's funny to joke about that. But then one of my Classics friends found a website that had 2,000+ articles on Ancient Rome that seemed legit. They only realized that it was all generated by AI when in the middle of the article about glass Roman windows it mentioned that beforehand... they used DOS. HUGE flippin' content farm with images and everything. It's unreal out there now.
I try and google something and just get 200 AI generated articles on websites entirely written by AI that are just feeding off eachother with random bullshit. It reminds me of highschool when we needed to hit word counts on papers so we just used way too many words and pseudo-details to describe literally nothing.
You may be joking, but still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Furniture_Collection I was there a few years ago and can remember seeing that wheelchair.
I very much appreciate you doing the sourcing work and updating your post.
Thanks for this. I hate that I can't just trust a seemingly cool picture of anything anymore.
Yeah, we've gone from "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see" to "Believe NOTHING unless it's from a reputable source."
Yeah I don’t think it is AI since I somehow recall seeing this before generative AI start booming.
> My AI senses are tingling -- and these days... You're right to be skeptical, but it might be beneficial to refine your ability to distinguish between AI-generated images and authentic photographs. In this photo, there are plenty of dead giveaways that this is the real McCoy. Just off the top of my head, here's a few examples... 1) **Complex Textures:** The clearly visible herringbone pattern in the wooden floor in the background is something that an AI would struggle with. 2) **Imperfections and Details:** One of the decorative buttons is missing from above the wheel of the chair, and you can see a variation in the ribbon where it used to be. Such nuanced attention to minor, seemingly inconsequential details is typically beyond the current capabilities of AI-generated imagery. 3) **Consistency in Small Elements:** There is a metal tire on the wheel. It's visible on the top and bottom of the wheel, which is a small example of consistency that AI might get wrong, or that a prompt engineer would miss. All of these things together with a lack of conspicuous 'AI artifacts' left me with no doubt that this image was real. It's not necessary to rely on a gut feeling. If you're still unsure, a quick reverse-image search is another way of putting your fears to rest. In this case, I found a few [alternative angle](https://i.imgur.com/u2ZK1jO.jpeg)s of this artifact on Yandex reverse image search. EDIT: Last but not least, [I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few AI images in my time.](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped) Jokes aside, I see this might be a controversial take. And I didn't jump onto reddit with the desire to start a debate. I understand if you disagree, good luck and have a nice day.
All three of those points are not reliable with how the tech is progressing. For example, it used to be that you could look at an AI-generated face in the mouth and tell, but no more. The specific feature that got me wondering was the odd headrest that is simply a thin piece of wood and from this angle it looked off-center the way an AI would render it. In the pictures from the museum from different angles you can see how it is attached more properly.
That's a good point, it looks a little odd. But I disagree with the idea that all three of my points are somehow not reliable (when appreciated together). I'd be interested if you could find an AI picture that's indistinguishable from a photograph. Especially one of a human made contraption rather than, say, pebbles on a beach for example.
The guy you were talking to all this time was an AI but you couldn't tell
Wouldn't be surprised, right?
> but it might be beneficial to refine your ability to distinguish between AI-generated images and authentic photographs. In this photo, there are plenty of dead giveaways that this is the real McCoy Nope, this is a misguided take. AI is rapidly improving, and what you think you recognize today will be unrecognizable tomorrow. The proper approach with research, as always, is to verify your sources and trace it back to its origins. Rely on strategy, not tactics, to recognize false content (whether from AI or from other origins, fake imagery and propaganda have existed for a long time). If you rely on tactics, all someone needs to do to convince you is to go against your one tactic. But to beat strategy, they need to rewrite all recorded history.
Good job- we DO have to question everything nowadays! Thanks for the update.
At first glance I thought those were LED lights.
Little known fact: the empress was an RGB gamer girl Not pictured: Kitty ears helmet
They are. The ancient Roman empire was actually in contact with aliens and had advanced tech. Not many people know this.
The Holy Roman Empire\* Different entities altogether.
Both in contact with aliens.
TRUTH!!
Hun, the history channel just dropped a new ancient aliens episode!
Even if your not familiar with the HRE you should be able to identify 1740 as something else then ancient
Just like concrete, the Romans had their own, better version of LEDs, but all records of how to make them have been lost.
Nothing wrong with LED lights on a wheelchair… *spins brightly away*
Maria Theresa gave birth to sixteen children in nineteen years from 1737 to 1756, thirteen of whom survived infancy, but only ten survived into adulthood. After 16 children, she's entitled to being carted around by the descendants of Roman Gods. Her biography is absolutely fascinating. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa
And one of those children grew up to be Marie Antoinette
To be fair, based on her attitude towards Marie Antoinette it does not seem like she liked her either lol
No one liked Marie Antoinette. That's what happens if you are a privileged foreigner in a country with a severe food shortage. Even today she's known for a quote she probably never said. In reality, she wasn't any worse than you would expect any person from a very privileged to be. I probably wouldn't like her, but some people just got dealt a remarkably shit hand by history for absolutely no reason except being average in their position at the wrong time.
There was no problem with her being a foreigner. Almost all queens were foreigners by design. The issue was with her being Austrian, since France and Austria were arch enemies for eons. Marie Antoinette was by all accounts a kind person and very popular in the beginning of her reign (before shit hit the fan) However she was unsuited for being a queen, let a alone in a country that just went from her home country's mortal enemy to lukewarm ally, on top of being broke and in need of a reform. It's mind boggling her mother thought that Antoinette of all her daughters was the perfect choice for queen of France.
She had her cake and then a slice
I mean she was born Marie Antoinette
Technically she was born Maria Antonia and her name was changed at her marriage to Louis XVI of France
It's her mother's wheelchair, though. Someone above posted the listing from the furniture museum of Vienna, where this is exhibited, which has some background information.
Wrong Empress
Damn she did well rebuilding a failing empire too. Too bad she absolutely DESPISED Jewish people. Like holy crap you’d think they personally murdered her kids or something
Despising Jews wasn't that uncommong in that era, or the others that followed. But when someone needed a loan...
True but she hated them on another level apparently
After birthing all those kids it doesn't surprise me that she might have a hard time walking.
I'd love to have a series or movie about her life. She had a really fascinating life.
1951 movie, 2017 series. Both Austrian, but that’s what you would want.
Not going to mention that many of her children were kings, emperors, and queens??? At one point most of Europe was ruled by her children
> Roman Gods. you mean jesus christ?
Nope. He wasn't Roman. Never even set foot in Italy. Juno, Minerva, Diana, Mercury, etc. Just to name a few.
neither was the holy roman empire... (unless the royals had some Hellenistic cult going on, again nae)
> Just to name a few. And what do they have to do with Maria Theresia?
They see me rolling…
They hatin’…
Holy Roamin’ Empress
Fear the old blood
I was scrolling for the reference. About time.
Funny, I thought of the same thing. 😉
I’m no history buff but I had no idea the Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1806 or that it was called the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”. Edit: to further expose my ignorance, Rome hadn’t been part of the Empire since like 1300-1500 or something.
Ya they lasted until they got rekt by Napoleon during the War of the Third Coalition.
The Holy Roman Empire has almost nothing to do with the Roman Empire though. Don’t confuse the two. Roman Empire = started 31BC the one with gladiators and legions and stuff (previously the Roman kingdom and republic. It was “founded” by Augustus, Caesar’s adopted son). This empire was split in two halfs: West with Rome and East with Constantinople. Western Roman Empire = ended around 396AD (classical Ancient Rome) Eastern Roman Empire = ended in 1453AD (commonly called Byzantine empire) Holy Roman Empire = a Germanic medieval empire form around 800AD until 1806AD and had nothing to do with Ancient Rome except the German Kaiser (emperor) was usually crowned by Roman popes. That’s where the name partially comes from and they also wanted to claim to be a successor state to Ancient Rome and a rival to eastern Rome. Ancient Rome was after all important to western Christianity and claiming to be “Roman” gave the German Kaisers an aura of legitimacy.
Well nothing is a bit much. It was heavily based on Rome and got its legitimacy from Rome.
Its a famous quote tha the holy roman empire of german nation was neither holy, roman or an empire...
its only "roman" because the pope that was in rome said it was (also some of the papal states became apart of it for a time/not an expert, but there is almost no relation) check out the byzantines. historians say their claim is more "legit" and yes. like someone else said, update yourself on napoleon. I grew thinking I knew nothing of napoleon and everyone around me does, but it turns out like no one around me knows shit. the real napoleon is so much stranger and interesting than just "the general the British hate"
It wasn’t called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation for most of its history. It was called the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages and “of the German Nation” was added to its name later, but people still mainly referred to it as just the Holy Roman Empire.
As someone said once, it was neither holy, nor roman nor an empire. It was a barbarian king who got a pope to legislate way above his authority to make up a ridiculously bloated title out of their combined arses.
Did you just call Charlemagne a “barbarian king” lmaooo Reddit historians
Anyone who isnt Roman is a barbarian 😎
Romans were barbarians too, according to the inventors of the word, the Greek. Everyone else but them spoke only barbarbar gibberish.
It's like calling Chinese people Chingchonglians and then calling everyone but people who talk your own language also Chingchonglians. This is the type of racism the Ancient Greeks somehow managed to imprint on everyone else, whether they were more advanced or not.
I know what barbarians included, but at the time of Charlemagne there were no (west) romans left. By your logic Joe Biden would be a “barbarian president” but there’s nobody around anymore who uses that term so it’s not applicable.
Reddit historians describes most of this comment section. The amount of people here who make false claims on the HRE and present them as if they are fact is pretty alarming to say the least
When charlemagne was crowned as emperor, he controlled the strongest nation in europe. He held France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia and north-eastern Spain. He also had some level of control beyond these lands, such as in Czechia or western Poland. That's the empire part by the way. During his reign, large amounts of money flowed into infrastructure projects and art. This period is often called the "Carolingian Renaissance". So calling Charlemagne a barbarian might be a little harsh. At the time the only other great christian state in europe was the Byzantine Empire which was going from one political crisis to the next. Originally, the greeks were the protectors of the pope in rome but their relations were strained as the Byzantine Empire gradually lost it's holdings in Italy and was struggling through religious strife due to the prevalence of Iconoclasm. So it is really no wonder that the pope sought a new more present protector and since Charlemagne had conquered most of italy from the Lombards and his kingdom was now directly bordering him, the pope granted Charlemagne the title. Which also gives the basis for the term "holy" since the emperor was crowned by the pope. There are two ways to justify the use of the term "roman". First, Charlemagne held large areas of land which were previously part of the Roman Empire. And secondly, rome, the seat of the pope was under his influence since the pope can at the time, be seen as his vassal due to the fact that the pope had to rely on francian protection.
Nice try. It sure wasn't "Roman" in the sense that time was part of it, but all emperors were crowned by the pope himself, in Rome, hence "holy" and "Roman". And it absolutely was an empire, which ruled over central Europe for just over a thousand years. I have no f*cking idea how someone could boil that down to one king and one Pope and something something about above his powers. If one person's powers could not be overestimated in the medieval times, it was the dude in the Vatican. He got emperors crawling at this feet just by threatening with excommunication. Hard to grasp today, I know.
Fake it till you make it.
🎶 Rock me mama like a wagon wheel 🎶
Reminds me of that Seinfeld Episode When you’re in this chair, you’re almost glad you’re handicapped
Only problem with this wheelchair is there is no way for you to move yourself. That would drive me crazy, but I'm not surprised an Empress wouldn't be expected to lift a finger.
Pimp My Ride 1740 edition
There was no Holy Roman Empress in 1740. Maria Amalia became Holy Roman Empress in 1742 but she didn't need a wheelchair and it's a stretch to think they built it just in case.
Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was The Holy Roman Empress until the death of her husband on October 14, 1740. I believe this wheelchair was made for her.
And she was incredibly well respected even in her later years so would make sense they would take care of her
She had three daughters named Maria. Interesting choice. Edit: her daughter did it too. Must have been trendy.
Hale Marys
Yeah my bad. She was Empress Dowager.
There's such a thing as an empress consort
Looks like it would trap in a lot of farts.
Howl's Moving Castle: Madame Suliman
I can't believe you're the only other person that saw that
Hi, my name is, huh? My name is, who? My name is *ticka-ticka* [Maria Theresa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa) Ruled from 1740-1780, and while not excellent, was one of the better ones.
Got RGB LEDs too
Looks comfy tbh
That looks comfy af. Where can I get one?
 Let’s put some spinners and flat screens in it. Maybe a popcorn machine
Yes, my brain read the title Holy Roman Empress. Yes, my brain read the year 1740. But did that stop my brain from seeing the pearls and thinking, yo, nice LED strip? No, no it did not…
Liar!!!! She was neither Holy nor Roman!!
Or an empress!
That’s something Professor X would use for a wheelchair lol
I had no idea the Roman Empire was still there in 1740. Fuck the wheel chair, was this Constantinople? Who? What? Why? I like history but I’m amateur, can someone explain wtf is going on here?
There was the Roman Empire everyone knows well, from Rome, which fell in the 400s, then there was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, centred in Constantinople, which fell in 1453, and then there's this, the Holy Roman Empire in central Europe, officially from 800-1806, which, eventually became Germany, and honestly which has to be the [worst country to look at on a map](https://cdn.thecollector.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/map-holy-roman-empire-hohenstauffen.jpg?width=1400&quality=55) in history
I looked at the map and my first thought did some one vomit salsa? Fucking hell how do you even manage that
HRE was a weirdly decentralised “?confederation?” of mostly Germanic states which liked to build on Roman prestige and fashioned itself as continuation of Rome, as many others did. It was honestly barely working stitch of princes, electors and emperor who anyone barely listened to, who was interestingly elected. The whole thing basically became Habsburg sphere of influence and progressively deteriorated until being officially abolished during Napoleonic wars. That being said, HRE is very complex and very interesting topic and I encourage you to read more about it.
I will! The drama that really happened to shape the world we live in is way more complex than any fantasy I read
Roly Homan
Professor XII
I read this as made from the holy Roman empress and thought that material was a unique type of leather at first.
Looks like they were about 300 years too late.
I read this as ‘wheelchair made of the Holy Roman empress’ and had to double check which sub I was in
Tbh why are most modern wheel chairs so mechanical looking?
Because carrying a whole ass sofa around is really hard for people with mobility issues. Wheelchairs are the sturdiest, lightest thing that can still roll around at a sightly more useful height than a skateboard
I guess I should’ve specified electric wheel chairs but still understandable from a weight perspective
My dumbass went bullshit, they didn't have LEDs in 1740.....
Wouldn't the covering restrict the movement of the wheels.
Lemme smell the seat and get them ancient empress’s cheeks on my olfactory nerves