I came to this map not first as a cartographer, but as a historian who has lived with the late Holy Roman Empire for more than a decade. Although the physical act of producing the map took roughly six weeks, that figure is misleading. In truth, this map is the culmination of many years of sustained engagement—beginning with my undergraduate thesis and continuing through my master’s dissertation—devoted to understanding the political culture, legal imagination, and emotional attachments that animated the Empire in its final decades. It is an attempt to give visual form to a world I have spent much of my intellectual life inhabiting.
My academic work has long revolved around a single, persistent question: how did contemporaries understand the Holy Roman Empire at the moment when it appeared most vulnerable, most anachronistic, and yet most deeply defended? At the Second Congress of Rastatt (1797–1799), German diplomats, jurists, pamphleteers, and princes argued furiously about reform, compensation, and survival. Yet what struck me then—and continues to strike me now—was not how revolutionary these debates were, but how bounded they remained. Even as the Empire faced territorial dismemberment and ideological assault, almost no one involved could imagine a political future that truly escaped its inherited categories of hierarchy, corporate privilege, and law.
This map is an effort to render that paradox visible.
At first glance, the map appears dense, fragmented, even chaotic. That is intentional. The Holy Roman Empire was not a territorial state, and to depict it as one would be to falsify its nature. Instead, it was a juridical order—a framework of rights, privileges, and obligations layered atop geography rather than derived from it. The visual grammar of the map reflects this reality. Borders intersect. Colors overlap. Allegiances are implied rather than asserted. What emerges is not a clean political unit, but a palimpsest of sovereignty.
This map from 1800 was produced in Paris and depicts the Circles (“Kreise”) of the Holy Roman Empire. When Germans created maps of the Empire, they too usually depicted it in such a manner.
The color key serves as the primary guide to this complexity. Territories held by the great dynastic houses—the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, and Wittelsbachs—are distinguished chromatically to emphasize a fundamental feature of the late Empire: its internal balance rested increasingly on powers whose ambitions and identities extended beyond the Reich. Austria and Prussia were imperial Estates, but they were also European great powers, and the tension between those roles destabilized the system from within. Their lands appear on the map only partially enclosed by imperial boundaries, a deliberate reminder that neither dynasty could be fully contained by the constitutional order it formally upheld.
Equally important are the categories that represent the Empire’s weaker—but legally vital—components. Imperial Cities (Reichsstädte) appear as isolated points of autonomy, legally immediate to the Emperor yet geographically exposed. Ecclesiastical territories (Geistliche Gebiete)—bishoprics, abbeys, and archbishoprics—occupy significant space, a visual testament to the continued fusion of spiritual and temporal authority on the eve of secularization. Finally, smaller secular territories (Kleinere weltliche Gebiete) form a dense mosaic of lordships, counties, and principalities whose existence was guaranteed by imperial law but increasingly threatened by mediatization.
This map depicts the member states of the Swabian Circle in the late 18th century, generally seen as the most efficient and successful of the Imperial Circles. The region shown is roughly comparable to the size of Switzerland and hosted around 600 sovereign polities. The white spaces perforating the map are primarily Habsburg properties.
These categories reflect the very terms in which contemporaries debated reform. At Rastatt, defenders of the status quo and advocates of transformation alike grounded their arguments in appeals to legality, precedent, and what they termed the “German constitution.” As I argued in my dissertation, even the most self-interested princes cloaked their ambitions in juridical language, while weaker Estates invoked law as a shield against annihilation. The Empire’s political imagination was, to an extraordinary degree, a legal one.
Yet law alone could no longer command unquestioned allegiance. By the late eighteenth century, Enlightenment ideas about progress, happiness, and rational governance had begun to erode the moral authority of inherited structures. This tension—between reverence for tradition and attraction to reform—runs beneath the surface of the map. It is present in the way ecclesiastical territories sit uneasily alongside secular ones; in the vulnerability of the imperial cities; in the visual imbalance between dynastic blocs and corporate remnants.
The eight coats of arms along the lower margin, representing the imperial electors as they stood in 1789, serve as a symbolic anchor. The electoral college embodied the Empire’s constitutional core, and its composition was treated with near-reverence. To freeze it at this moment—on the eve of revolutionary upheaval—is to underscore how much contemporaries still believed in the legitimacy of imperial forms, even as those forms strained under unprecedented pressure.
Foreign affiliations further complicate the picture. Hannover, though firmly within the imperial framework, is marked by its dynastic union with Great Britain. Holstein, culturally and geographically German, lies under Danish authority. Swedish Pomerania remains a relic of seventeenth-century geopolitics. Elsewhere, imperial territories persist within lands already absorbed by France, especially along the left bank of the Rhine. These anomalies were not aberrations; they were constitutive features of the Empire’s political ecology. They reveal a system that prioritized legal status over territorial coherence, and continuity over rationalization.
In my own work, I once invoked contemporary German Philosopher Joseph Görres’ nightmare vision of the Empire as a grotesque, parchment-clad monster—“three hundred hands, none of which was strong enough to wield a sword”—muttering endlessly about its constitutional basis. That image captures something essential about the late Reich: its obsessive attachment to legality, its incapacity for decisive reform, and its enduring emotional hold over those who criticized it most fiercely. Görres’ Germania lies bound and weeping nearby, not because the Empire was meaningless, but because it could no longer reconcile its principles with the demands of a changing world.
Depicted is Napoleon standing before a large “New French Oven for Imperial Gingerbread” in the process of creating/baking new kings called “Bavaria, Wirtembg, [and] Baden.” To the left, Talleyrand is in the process of making another batch of dough.
This map does not seek to rehabilitate the Holy Roman Empire, nor to condemn it. Rather, it attempts to take it seriously on its own terms. Like my historical work, it rejects both the older caricature of the Reich as a failed state and the more recent temptation to read it as a proto-federation. It was neither. It was a historically specific political organism—remarkably durable, deeply conservative, and ultimately unable to resolve the contradictions it carried within itself.
If this map feels demanding, even resistant, that too is deliberate. To engage with it is to confront a political order that does not conform to modern expectations. In that sense, the map mirrors the experience of the diplomats at Rastatt, who found themselves trapped between “old prejudices” and “new, refined concepts,” exhausted by war, confused by change, and yet unable to imagine a future wholly detached from the past.
I have tried, here, to let the map speak in the same register as the world it depicts: layered, juridical, and unresolved. It is an act of historical interpretation rendered visually—a meditation on time, authority, and the stubborn persistence of inherited forms.
Select Sources from my Oxford Dissertation
Alfers, Robert. “Map of the Holy Roman Empire, 1789.” Map. Wikipedia. June 8, 2008. Accessed June 6, 2022. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png.
Aretin, Karl Otmar. Das Alte Reich, 1648-1806: das Reich und der österreichisch-preussiche Dualismus (1745-1806). Vol. 3. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1997.
. "Russia as a Guarantor Power of the Imperial Constitution under Catherine II." The Journal of Modern History 58, no. 4 (1986): 141-160.
Beales, Derek, and Edward Dawson. Joseph II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Biro, Sydney Seymour. The German Policy of Revolutionary France : A Study in French Diplomacy during the War of the First Coalition, 1792-1797. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1957.
Blanning, T. C. W. The French Revolution in Germany : Occupation and Resistance in the Rhineland, 1792-1802. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
. Reform and Revolution in Mainz, 1743-1803. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Central Europe after the Peace of Basel and the Treaty of Campo Formio [map]. Scale not given. In: Ward, Adolphus William, G. W. Prothero, and E. A. Benians. The Cambridge Modern History Atlas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912, Map 84.
Doney, John Christopher. "The Catholic Enlightenment and Popular Education in the Prince-Bishopric of Würzburg, 1765–95." Central European History 21, no. 1 (1988): 3-30.
Epstein, Klaus. The Genesis of German Conservatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
Fahrmeir, Andreas. “Centralisation versus Particularism in the ‘Third Germany’.” In Collaboration and Resistance in Napoleonic Europe, edited by Michael Rowe, 107-20. New York City, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Forster, Marc R. Catholic Germany from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Frey, Linda, and Frey, Marsha. "‘More Savage than White Bears’: The Diplomatic Etiquette of Revolutionary France." Court Historian 22, no. 1 (2017): 53-74.
Frie, Ewald. “Arenen des Politischen.” Class lecture, Deutsche Geschichte 1780-1830, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, June 18, 2018.
Gagliardo, John G. Reich and Nation: The Holy Roman Empire as Idea and Reality, 1763-1806. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1980.
Godsey, William D. Nobles and Nation in Central Europe: Free Imperial Knights in the Age of Revolution, 1750-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Hohrath, Daniel, Gebhard Weig, and Michael Wettengel. Das Ende Reichsstädtischer Freiheit, 1802 : Zum Übergang Schwäbischer Reichsstädte vom Kaiser zum Landesherrn : Begleitband zur Ausstellung "Kronenwechsel", Das Ende Reichsstädtischer Freiheit, 1802. Stuttgart [Stadtarchiv Ulm]: Kommissionsverlag W. Kohlhammer, 2002.
Hüffer, Hermann. Diplomatische Verhandlungen aus der Zeit der Französischen Revolution. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1878.
Klueting, Harm. “Die josephinischen Klosteraufhebungen und die Säkularisationsdiskussion im Reich vor 1803.” In Das Reich und seine Territorialstaaten im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, edited by Wolfgang Schmale and Harm Klueting, 207-224. Vol. 10. Geschichte Und Kirchengeschichte Zwischen Mittelalter Und Moderne. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004.
Knudsen, Jonathan B. Justus Möser and the German Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Kopsidis, Michael. “Produktmärkte und Agrarentwicklung 1750 bis 1880. Die letzte Phase vorindustrieller Agrarentwicklung als erste Phase des säkularen landwirtschaftlichen Wachstums der Neuzeit und Moderne? Implikationen für Sachsen.” In UnGleichzeitigkeiten: Transformationsprozesse in der ländlichen Gesellschaft der (Vor-)Moderne, edited by Ira Spieker et al., 61-76. Vol 13. Bausteine aus dem Institut für Sächsische Geschichte und Volkskunde. Dresden: Bausteine aus dem ISGV, 2008.
Kugeler, Heidrun. ‘Le Parfait Ambassadeur’. The Theory and Practice of Diplomacy in the Century following the Peace of Westphalia. PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2006.
Lehner, Ulrich L. Enlightened Monks : The German Benedictines 1740-1803. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Müller, Marco. “Unterschiedlichste Nutzungen: Das Rastatter Schloss von 1771-1918.” In Schloss Rastatt - Schloss Favorite: Menschen Geschichte, Architektur, edited by Wolfgang Froese and Martin Walder, 159-170. Vol. 8. Sonderveröffentlichung Des Kreisarchivs Rastatt. Gernsbach: Casimir Katz Verlag, 2011.
Printy, Michael O'Neill. Enlightenment and the Creation of German Catholicism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Rohrschneider, Michael. Österreich und der Immerwährende Reichstag : Studien zur Klientelpolitik und Parteibildung (1745-1763). Schriftenreihe Der Historischen Kommission Bei Der Bayerischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften ; Vol. 89. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
Roider, Karl A. Baron Thugut and Austria's Response to the French Revolution. Princeton Legacy Library. Princeton, New Jersey, 1987.
Ross, Steven. European Diplomatic History 1789-1815: France Against Europe. 1st ed. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, 1969.
Rowe, Michael. From Reich to State : The Rhineland in the Revolutionary Age, 1780-1830. New Studies in European History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Schmidt, Georg. Geschichte Des Alten Reiches : Staat Und Nation in Der Frühen Neuzeit 1495-1806. München: C.H. Beck, 1999.
Scott, Hamish. “Diplomatic Culture in Old Regime Europe.” In Cultures of Power in Europe during the Long Eighteenth Century, by Scott M. Hamish and Brendan Simms, 58-85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Seifner, Gerhard J. “The Hanoverian Embassy in Vienna 1764-1772.” PhD diss., University of Alberta, 1982.
Siemann, Wolfram. Metternich : Strategist and Visionary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.
Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. Des Kaisers Alte Kleider : Verfassungsgeschichte Und Symbolsprache Des Alten Reiches. München: C.H Beck, 2008.
________. The Holy Roman Empire : A Short History. Translated by Yair Mintzker. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021.
Whaley, Joachim. “Central European History and the Holy Roman Empire.” Central European History 51, no. 1 (2018): 40–45. doi:10.1017/S0008938918000067.
________. From the Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich 1648 -1806. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2012.
________. "Wahre Aufklärung Kann Erreicht Und Segensreich Werden': The German Enlightenment and Its Interpretation." Oxford German Studies 44, no. 4 (2015): 428-48.
Whitman, James Q. The Legacy of Roman Law in the German Romantic Era : Historical Vision and Legal Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Wilson, Peter H. From Reich to Revolution : German History 1558-1806. European History in Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
________. German Armies : War and German Politics, 1648-1806. Warfare and History. London: UCL Press, 1998.
________. Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016.
________. “Military Culture in the Reich, C. 1680-1806.” In Cultures of Power in Europe during the Long Eighteenth Century, by Scott M. Hamish and Brendan Simms, 36-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
________. “Still a Monstrosity? Some Reflections on Early Modern German Statehood.” The Historical Journal 49, no. 2 (2006): 565–76. doi:10.1017/S0018246X06005334.
________. “The Armies of the German Princes.” In European Armies of the French Revolution, 1789-1802, edited by Frederick C. Schneid, 182-210. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015.
Ziegelbrenner. “Der Deutsche Bund.” Map. Wikipedia. July 17, 2006. Accessed June 6, 2022. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutscher_Bund.svg#/media/File:Deutscher_Bund.png.
