The Triumph of Barbarossa and the Victory of the Holy Roman Empire

The Stormlord

From Karl Sternberg's Geschichte der Heiliges Römisches Reich (History of the Holy Roman Empire):

Frederick I Barbarossa is doubtlessly one of the Great Men of history, having been pivotal to the success of the Third Crusade. There exists an apocryphal tale that he almost drowned in the Saleph River while bathing - its veracity is unknown. In any case, Barbarossa's forces linked up with Richard the Lionheart's forces near Acre, and defeated the forces of Saladin in the Battle of the Sands (its location is unknown, but it is thought to have happened near the Sea of Galilee), the first of a string of victories which culminated in Saladin's death at the Battle of the Jordan, after which Jerusalem was reclaimed. A succession crisis occurred in Egypt around this time, but Barbarossa was forced to return to his empire following troubles in Germany, preventing the Kingdom of Jerusalem from expanding.

After returning from the Holy Land, Barbarossa crushed some revolts that had grown in his absence and spent most of his time consolidating his power and dynasty. When he died in 1202, the throne went to his son, who would become Henry VI Hohenstaufen - the Great.


 
Last edited:

Faeelin

Banned
I am very interested. I'm not sure if Barbarossa could have managed to snaffle Sicily the way Henry VI did; it was largely financed by Richard's ransom.
 

The Stormlord

Decided to resurrect this one.

From The Glory of Rhomanion (Ioannis Melas)

The success of the Third Crusade had, it has to be said, changed history. The reclamation of Jerusalem marked a large change in the Crusader's fortunes. The Egyptians had several claimants to the throne, trapped in a dynastic crisis, and it was only natural that they should be next. So it was in 1204 that the Fourth Crusade, after a brief, unremarkable stopover in Constantinople, landed at Alexandria, besieging the city and capturing it after a six-month siege. The Egyptian princes were quick to react to this new threat, but after a series of desperate battles, the Crusaders playing on their internal divisions, the Crusaders took the city of Cairo.

Despite this, the Egyptian princes continued their struggle, but the Crusaders also had problems of their own - their lines of supply were overextended. So, after five years of war, the war ended with the Crusaders firmly in control of the Nile Delta, the coast, and an area ending 100 miles to the north of Luxor. This territory, the Crusaders proclaimed the Kingdom of Egypt, choosing Boniface of Montferrat as King Boniface I. This move angered the Romans, but Egypt was too far for them to do much about it. Eventually, Boniface I died, all his possible heirs having predeceased him, and due to a personal union Egypt and Jerusalem merged into the Kingdom of Jerusalem-Egypt, under King Carolus I.
 
Cuāuhtemōc

Cuāuhtemōc

Banned
Any Egyptian Crusader state based only in the Nile Delta will remain suceptible and in this TL's case, a secondary portion of whoever ends up ruling Jerusalem. Egypt needs to expand southward towards the more Coptic areas if it desires to survive.
 

The Stormlord

Geschichte der Heiliges Römisches Reich (Karl Sternberg)

Henry VI was a great monarch, who kept the nobles and the Pope firmly in line. He continued the centralisation work of Barbarossa, and spent most of his time in the city of Rome when not travelling his kingdom or on campaign. As such, he built a new palace in Rome on the Palatine Hill, not far from the old Imperial palace - fancying himself a new Roman Emperor, which earned him some enmity from the Rhomaoi of Rhomanion. This Neo-Roman myth was essential to the Holy Roman Empire in the 1200s and later part of the Middle Ages, and enabled it to weather the various crises that hit the Empire in the later part of the 1200s.

Henry VI also did one very good thing for the Empire - he made the Emperorship hereditary, against great opposition. The firstborn son would inherit the title of Holy Roman Emperor, and if he predeceased the Emperor, it would move on to the second-born son, and so on. If there were no male heirs, a woman could theoretically inherit the title - but this was incredibly unlikely.

Henry died in 1227 - at the same time as the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan - . Little did he know, that Eastern Europe would soon, in a matter of decades, be assaulted by the armies of the largest contiguous empire ever to exist.
 
SavoyTruffle

SavoyTruffle

So the Emperor has won his struggle against the Pope.

This could mean that the Western and Eastern churches aren't gonna be that different, with Emperors supreme over religious leaders.
 

Monty Burns

Kairos Fateweaver said:

Henry VI was a great monarch, who kept the nobles and the Pope firmly in line. He continued the centralisation work of Barbarossa, and spent most of his time in the city of Rome when not travelling his kingdom or on campaign.

Henry VI also did one very good thing for the Empire - he made the Emperorship hereditary, against great opposition.
Click to expand...

I really like a TL about successful Hohenstauffen and HRE. However, given that this Henry VI. completely changed the structure of the HRE and the church - something which never happened IOTL - I would appreciate strongly if you could write a bit more about how he achieved such tasks.
 

Janprimus

Kairos Fateweaver said:
Geschichte der Heiliges Römisches Reich (Karl Sternberg)

Henry VI was a great monarch, who kept the nobles and the Pope firmly in line. He continued the centralisation work of Barbarossa, and spent most of his time in the city of Rome when not travelling his kingdom or on campaign. As such, he built a new palace in Rome on the Palatine Hill, not far from the old Imperial palace - fancying himself a new Roman Emperor, which earned him some enmity from the Rhomaoi of Rhomanion. This Neo-Roman myth was essential to the Holy Roman Empire in the 1200s and later part of the Middle Ages, and enabled it to weather the various crises that hit the Empire in the later part of the 1200s.

Henry VI also did one very good thing for the Empire - he made the Emperorship hereditary, against great opposition. The firstborn son would inherit the title of Holy Roman Emperor, and if he predeceased the Emperor, it would move on to the second-born son, and so on. If there were no male heirs, a woman could theoretically inherit the title - but this was incredibly unlikely.

Henry died in 1227 - at the same time as the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan - . Little did he know, that Eastern Europe would soon, in a matter of decades, be assaulted by the armies of the largest contiguous empire ever to exist.
Click to expand...

Will the firstborn (heir) be king of the Romans at birth, or will he be created king of the Romans later in life?
 
SavoyTruffle

SavoyTruffle

So Henry VI does what the Habsburgs effectively did centuries earlier, except it's de jure.

With a hereditary Imperial title, there are no Electors who can rise to become the Emperor's rivals, and thus it's easier to keep the HRE more unified.
 

Yorel

Hereditary HRE led by the Hohenstaufen... Interesting...
I'm wondering how it is seen by the other European nations. Especially France (Philip II Augustus of France was an ally of the Hohenstaufen OTL) and England (Richard I Lionheart had made himself an ennemy of Henry VI in the third crusade).
 
SavoyTruffle

SavoyTruffle

If the French ally with the Empire against the Angevins, then they lose a lot of their French holdings. If it's the reverse, on the other hand, it's a massive French-screw.
 

Alexius I Kommenos

Oh boy I hope this is as good as that Unholy Roman empire tl created in 2006 by Midgard I think. BTW in that TL Barbarossa survives, and it's extremly well written you should check it out
 

Eurofed

Banned
Monty Burns said:
I really like a TL about successful Hohenstauffen and HRE. However, given that this Henry VI. completely changed the structure of the HRE and the church - something which never happened IOTL - I would appreciate strongly if you could write a bit more about how he achieved such tasks.
Click to expand...

IOTL, Henry VI already came very close to get the HRE reformed to an hereditary monarchy. With the added prestige a longer-living Barbarossa would get from a victorious Third Crusade, the approval of the Erbkaisertum reform is all but sure.

Faeelin said:
I am very interested. I'm not sure if Barbarossa could have managed to snaffle Sicily the way Henry VI did; it was largely financed by Richard's ransom.
Click to expand...

Booty from a victorious Third Crusade may probably substitute for it.

Ringo Starr said:
Any Egyptian Crusader state based only in the Nile Delta will remain suceptible and in this TL's case, a secondary portion of whoever ends up ruling Jerusalem. Egypt needs to expand southward towards the more Coptic areas if it desires to survive.
Click to expand...

True, but not too hard if Jerusalem-Egypt keeps the backing of the HRE, England, and/or France. A Fifth Crusade may well be aimed to conquer Upper Egypt.

SavoyTruffle said:
If the French ally with the Empire against the Angevins, then they lose a lot of their French holdings. If it's the reverse, on the other hand, it's a massive French-screw.
Click to expand...

So very true. ITTL, which side England and France pick with the HRE in the early 13th century, defines the destiny and fate of the Angevin Empire and of French national unification for centuries to come. If the HRE backs France, then things go much like OTL (except modern HRE-France border shall remain the way it was in the Middle Ages). If it backs England, then the Angevin Empire gets entrenched, and the Kingdom of France is screwed to be a rump buffer state in Central France.
 
Cuāuhtemōc

Cuāuhtemōc

Banned
I would be interested in how a Crusader-run Egypt runs. Especially the relationship between the Catholics, Muslims, Jews and Copts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top