I've read your posts. They're pretty devoid of any arguments. You just keep posting pictures of black people and claiming that they are proof of . . . what exactly? That the Holy Roman Empire was black?
The first painting you posted was "
A Young Archer." It was done by Govaert Flinck in approximately 1639-1640, in the independent Dutch Republic. Are you implying that this was a black Holy Roman soldier? From the collection itself:
What would a Holy Roman Soldier be doing in the Dutch Republic? With a bow, at a time when bows were basically already out of fashion?
2. The picture you posted of Charles V to suggest that he's black makes no sense. How does that tapestry overrule literally EVERY OTHER PORTRAIT of Charles V in existence?
Particularly portraits that were actually painted with him in the artist's presence? Did the people in Lima even know what he looked like? To prove that Charles V was black, would you have to prove that his father or mother were also directly black?
You're literally just dropping pics from
The Worlds First Civilizations Were All Black Civilizations and
Black African Nobility Of Ancient Europe - Culture - Nairaland without any context.
3. The picture of Prince Nicolau was from the mid-19th century. The Holy Roman Empire collapsed in 1806. How does that prove anything about the Holy Roman Empire?
Now, if you'd like to argue that there were black noblemen in Sicily and Spain, I would not dispute that.
I would also not dispute that after the Moors were banished from Spain, some went to other regions in Europe where they were continued to be treated like nobility. Those places probably included central Europe.
But to say that the Holy Roman Empire was a "black empire" is totally absurd.