What if Cesare Borgia successful?

[isabella]

The reformation was a complex issue. Problems with the Papacy and it's corruption was an issue that dated back over a century. It was not something that just cropped up in 1517. I also think equating Reformation = Luther is a laughably simple way of trying to sum things up. Luther was not the only person in this period that critiqued the church; even men that we recall for the solid Catholicism such as Thomas More and Erasmus critiqued the papacy for it's excesses and issues. Luther was not really treading new ground, he himself even pointed out that the more he looked into things, the more he realized that he was relitigating arguments that had been brought up by Jan Hus.

Men like Luther existed way before him, such as Hus and even John Wycliffe. No one says the Reformation has to break out in Germany, like it's ordained or destined to do so because the year is suddenly 1517. There could just as easily be writers in France (Jacques Lefevre d'Étaples comes to mind) England, or even other parts of the Christendom that could reach similar conclusions. The 16th century church is not in a safe position: removing one or two popes out of a whole series of men going back into the 15th century that have caused issues is eventually going to come home to roost and will need to be dealt with.

OTL Reformation was not something who must or should happen. Luther was the only one with a big following who acted outside the Church and was pushed to go on that way. Take away Julius II’s papacy and your have broken the chain who brought to the OTL Reform and the likelier scenario see a Reform inside of the Church and not outside it with another schism

 

[Nuraghe]

The reformation was a complex issue. Problems with the Papacy and it's corruption was an issue that dated back over a century. It was not something that just cropped up in 1517. I also think equating Reformation = Luther is a laughably simple way of trying to sum things up. Luther was not the only person in this period that critiqued the church; even men that we recall for the solid Catholicism such as Thomas More and Erasmus critiqued the papacy for it's excesses and issues. Luther was not really treading new ground, he himself even pointed out that the more he looked into things, the more he realized that he was relitigating arguments that had been brought up by Jan Hus.

Men like Luther existed way before him, such as Hus and even John Wycliffe. No one says the Reformation has to break out in Germany, like it's ordained or destined to do so because the year is suddenly 1517. There could just as easily be writers in France (Jacques Lefevre d'Étaples comes to mind) England, or even other parts of the Christendom that could reach similar conclusions. The 16th century church is not in a safe position: removing one or two popes out of a whole series of men going back into the 15th century that have caused issues is eventually going to come home to roost and will need to be dealt with.

I agree with your argument, but in any case I think that Isabella is also right, given that it is true that since the 14th century a movement has developed and then established itself in Europe which pushes for a profound reform of the ecclesiastical system and of the Papacy ( first with conciliarism, then the challenge proposed by Hus and finally the Protestant Reformation of Otl ) but it is not wrong to say that a wrong policy (internal and foreign) combined with the excesses of some popes, only facilitated and fueled the spread of these ideas , therefore by intervening on their pontificates, we could obtain different results from Otl ( such as nipping the Protestant movement in the bud, to make it remain an internal process within the Catholic church or at least mitigate the devastating extent of its spread or even respond promptly to its criticisms, implementing an anticipated counter-reformation ) for example Luther himself, when he visited Rome in 1510 ( in full government of Julius II ), was simultaneously horrified and astonished by what he saw and heard, leaving him with a feeling of admiration and disgust towards papal Rome ( but it is good to remember that at this moment he was still convinced that the entire system could be cured, all that was needed was the right medicines ) therefore although the roots of the reform can be traced back to the previous century, the real straw that broke the camel's back can be easily observed during this period



p.s

I'll stop here with this topic, because we risk derailing the discussion, and I don't want that to happen, because I consider the future development of Cesare Borgia to be a very interesting topic

 

[DrakeRlugia]

OTL Reformation was not something who must or should happen. Luther was the only one with a big following who acted outside the Church and was pushed to go on that way. Take away Julius II’s papacy and your have broken the chain who brought to the OTL Reform and the likelier scenario see a Reform inside of the Church and not outside it with another schism

Again, no one is saying that it has to happen.

But if you seriously think that an early 16th century POD is going to magically fix everything and lead to an internal reform and keep the Catholic Christendom intact without serious issues, then your understanding of the issues within the church and in Europe at the time are incredibly simplistic. Unless you have some academic source that can back up your arguments, I disagree profoundly with your findings. Julius II was only part of the issue, not the issue. Papal finances and their fraught issues date back nearly two centuries, it was not a new phenomenon that the Popes as sovereign princes struggled with funding. The Pope was not exempt from the issue that all princes of the period dealt with.

"Because I say so" is not a source.

I agree with your argument, but in any case I think that Isabella is also right, given that it is true that since the 14th century a movement has developed and then established itself in Europe which pushes for a profound reform of the ecclesiastical system and of the Papacy ( first with conciliarism, then the challenge proposed by Hus and finally the Protestant Reformation of Otl ) but it is not wrong to say that a wrong policy (internal and foreign) combined with the excesses of some popes, only facilitated and fueled the spread of these ideas , therefore by intervening on their pontificates, we could obtain different results from Otl ( such as nipping the Protestant movement in the bud, to make it remain an internal process within the Catholic church or at least mitigate the devastating extent of its spread or even respond promptly to its criticisms, implementing an anticipated counter-reformation ) for example Luther himself, when he visited Rome in 1510 ( in full government of Julius II ), was simultaneously horrified and astonished by what he saw and heard, leaving him with a feeling of admiration and disgust towards papal Rome ( but it is good to remember that at this moment he was still convinced that the entire system could be cured, all that was needed was the right medicines ) therefore although the roots of the reform can be traced back to the previous century, the real straw that broke the camel's back can be easily observed during this period

Keeping any sort of reform within the church in the 16th century would be incredibly difficult, IMO. We have already seen people attempt to break away from the church in the 15th century, and even in the 15th century, there were attempts to curb the Pope's power through Conciliarism that failed, but still remained a fatal issue for the popes into the sixteenth centuries. As you move into the 16th centuries and monarchies begin to centralize and gain more power, there is no doubt there there will be some that will seek to impose or gain more control over things. France is a special case, as the Gallican Church was largely governed through the Sanction of Bourges and later the Concordat of Bologna. Spain likewise had little issues regarding reformation as a reformation of sorts had been carried out under the Catholic Monarchs which had struck down on the excesses of the Spanish Church and attempted to win it back in. Religious changes also went hand in hand with the decay of the late medieval system, such as in Sweden.

Lots of these arguments about nipping the reformation in the bud count on things that we know now—we know now that the Papacy should've probably responded more quickly to Luther's claims, but in that period, what reason did they have to listen? There was little reason for the Popes in Rome to pay heed to the ramblings of a monk in Wittenburg at the time; no one could have expected that his ideas would've imploded as they did. Even if it is not Luther, the introduction of the printing press and the beginning of people translating the bible into the vernacular and beginning to read it, you are opening a Pandora's box that cannot be closed back. National goals and powers often conflicted with the goals of the church and religious authorities—some lands found the reformation attractive for that reason alone, the increase of secular power.

I have very real doubts of the Catholic Christendom holding together into one singular unit—and if it does, it will likely look totally different from the OTL Church. Part of me wonders how much power the Papacy and Curia would even be able to retain for it's self.

No one is saying that Luther has to be the reformer. The spark could easily happen else where.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Is it at least possible for Cesear Borgia to create a politically powerful state that covers much of Northern Italy and has the potential to kickstart Italian unification far earlier than in OTL?

 

[Nuraghe]

Is it at least possible for Cesear Borgia to create a politically powerful state that covers much of Northern Italy and has the potential to kickstart Italian unification far earlier than in OTL?

highly unlikely, it would risk quickly antagonizing all the other high-profile Italian actors who have remained independent for now ( i.e. Rome, Florence and Venice ) not to mention that it means directly confronting France ( technically its "main" supporter, but it is more correct to say, who is his superior at the moment ) what Cesare can really aspire to is to consolidate and then develop ( he was already doing so, creating from scratch an unprecedented state administration in the region, and earning the affection of the local population with well-targeted policies ) his possessions in Romagna, which if he manages to maintain them, would form a nucleus of power capable of rivaling the main Italian powers ( i.e. the main signatories of the Italian League, alias Naples, Milan, Venice, Florence and the State of the Church ), without forgetting that the regionalist feeling in the peninsula is highly developed, so just being able to create a shared identity between the various localities of Romagna will be an arduous undertaking ( until then the region was divided into around 20 minor potentates ) which in the case of success could further raise him in the cultural imagination of Italy contemporary to him, as the greatest statesman of the period ( already in Otl Machiavelli held him in high regard, for his results obtained, even if ephemeral )

 

[Alkmaion]

You are partly right, but as Isabella actually says, with a Pod in 1503, papal policy is destined to change considerably compared to Otl, also altering the development of the Reformation itself ( given that the real fuse that set it off was the disputed election of Albert to the role of archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg (1) furthermore technically speaking the " Patrimonium Petrii " was considered limited by Lazio and the legations ( therefore Urbino would actually be included, but in Romagna, the territories truly considered fundamental by Rome , they are Ravenna and Bologna, territories that Cesare took care not to touch in OTL, so if this continues, I don't see why he can't maintain his personal fiefdom in the rest of the region ) to conclude, the possibilities for Rome to expand were not limited to Italy alone, in fact in this period there were numerous discussions between the HRE and the Papacy, to grant control of an ecclesiastical dominion in Germany, in exchange for greater assistance from Rome for the projects of Imperial reform of the Emperors ( or attempts to make military campaigns in Italy ) therefore it is not that Rome is intrinsically destined to want to occupy the whole of Romagna in the future


1) part of the Hohenzollern, who won ( fraudulently, buying his election with a very high sum ) against the Wettin candidate, furthermore the two families were in open competition for the possession of the very rich northern dioceses of the Reich, even going so far as to play false cards to prevail over their rivals, is in this context that the Wettins sponsored Luther's criticisms, since it was very convenient for him to attack the behavior of his rival, to delegitimize him

How will the papal policy change exactly? Isabella and you seem of the mind that Cesare would have influence for years to maintain the status quo in his favor. Which is pretty farfetched as he might have a handful of allies directly after his father´s death but that would thin out considerable with each new election. New families stepping forth to claim the traditional places of interest of the nepotes, cocurring with the newly appointed duke. And let´s not forget the dealbreaker which Cesare couldn´t escape if he wanted to: the Spanish/French power struggle in Italy that went on until the 1520´s. And nepotism did not vanish as a practice...therefore the roots of the problem that helped further the reformation did not go away.

As for Cesare, he was not a particularly genius politician, the things he did before 1503 were the brainchilds of his father, so I kinda see the future of 'Borgia-Romagna' cut short soon.

 

[Alkmaion]

Is it at least possible for Cesear Borgia to create a politically powerful state that covers much of Northern Italy and has the potential to kickstart Italian unification far earlier than in OTL?

No.

 

[Alkmaion]

Julius II’s wars and constructions plus his other expenses (he was the Pope with the most sumptuous court of that period) bankrupted the Papal States making necessary an higher use of indulgences. Butterfly his reign and the Papal finances would be in a better state (a nepotist like Leo X after him do not helped but Julius was the true disasters). Remind me what was the reason for which the whole mess with Luther started and degenerated?

He would be a powerful ruler in Italy and keep his influence in this way, plus he would still have relatives among the Cardinals

To quote one Giovanni Nevicare, 'The war is not over." Even Pope Not-Julius II has to step up in the times of french-spanish antagonism, so you won´t get away with armies fighting, and money delivered into this venues. And as Cesare was a part of these powerplay his decision will prolong the possible length of this conflict IOTL.
He would be a fresh, new ruler that would have to carefully balance loyalities.

Yes, the Romagna is a focal point of interest...and not in a good way.

 

[Alkmaion]

OTL Reformation was not something who must or should happen. Luther was the only one with a big following who acted outside the Church and was pushed to go on that way. Take away Julius II’s papacy and your have broken the chain who brought to the OTL Reform and the likelier scenario see a Reform inside of the Church and not outside it with another schism

Why not work up a rough timeline for 'Borgia Romagna' post 1503?

 

[isabella]

Why not work up a rough timeline for 'Borgia Romagna' post 1503?

Because I am writing right now three different TLs and working on two more? Plus I have already something like that as secondary scenario for one of the latter two…

 

[Alkmaion]

Okay, thinking about if for a while...let´s say Cesare wife dies in childbirth(second child) and is free for a new marriage?

A relative of Bianca Sforza maybe that gives him some connection to emperor Maximilian I., or someone from the spanish side? If he can reconcile with Spain it might be possible to get some influence through Joffre in Neapolis and the dukes of Gandia in Spain...

Addendum: the two Habsburgian brothers of these time married off three of their daughters to rulers from Italy. The kingdom was pretty high on their list of interests. What if one of these marriages goes to a son or grandchild of CB?

As for Siena, Cesare already had occupied the city once, and he could claim that is was a papal title and therefore, in theory, an expansion of the papal claim, yet he could be invested by the emperor to guard against the papacy and also Tuscany as a prince of the HRE

 

[Nuraghe]

How will the papal policy change exactly? Isabella and you seem of the mind that Cesare would have influence for years to maintain the status quo in his favor. Which is pretty farfetched as he might have a handful of allies directly after his father´s death but that would thin out considerable with each new election. New families stepping forth to claim the traditional places of interest of the nepotes, cocurring with the newly appointed duke. And let´s not forget the dealbreaker which Cesare couldn´t escape if he wanted to: the Spanish/French power struggle in Italy that went on until the 1520´s. And nepotism did not vanish as a practice...therefore the roots of the problem that helped further the reformation did not go away.

As for Cesare, he was not a particularly genius politician, the things he did before 1503 were the brainchilds of his father, so I kinda see the future of 'Borgia-Romagna' cut short soon.

Well actually you highlight some more than fair arguments, but I think you lose sight of the important details, for the development of the situation, first of all let's address what Cesare's real priorities are at this moment: the first obviously is to try to obtain a ' pontiff friend of him, is considering that Cesare inherited his father's immense patronage network ( also it must be considered that Rodrigo in his decades as vice-chancellor ( only as vice-chancellor, Rodrigo obtained a figure amounting to 60 thousand ducats annually, to which must be added other extra earnings from the various secondary positions obtained over time ) had meticulously set aside a substantial financial reserve to support his family ambitions, this little treasure, which is completely foreign to the papal treasury, can become an important resource for Cesare in the future, especially if it is added to the annual income he obtains as head of the papal army ( a sum that varies around 15/10 thousand ducats ), to which his ability to influence must also be added in the curia, thanks to his role as papal standard-bearer and the ties he personally built in the Roman aristocracy, the chances of getting a Pope, who comes from the pro-Borgia faction in the curia, are quite good ( Pius III himself was his creation ) this would be his main purpose, for an obvious reason, to have the titles created by his father recognized and approved by a second pontiff, so as to consolidate his position in Romagna, his other priority is to try to obtain imperial recognition for his possessions, so as to make his eventual deposition legally impossible, without a cause recognized as legitimately valid at an international level, this fact alone, practically read any French / Spanish ambition of being able to play a bad joke on them, at most one could try to support a rival candidate for his dominions or a part of them ( in particular this can be seen purely as an anti-Louis XII function, given that Paris might want to support Caterina Sforza and her children , who have local claims, but who have a serious obstacle to this, namely that the people of Romagna have made it clear that rather than having a Riario - Sforza government again, they would prefer to go to hell, therefore Cesare would be even more supported at the level local, if that were the alternative ) also because Paris cannot afford to depose or annex an Italian state, not openly hostile to it, given that it would nullify its laborious policy with the local potentates, carried out with the aim of further legitimizing its presence and government in the region, but making a such a maneuver ( deposing and then annexing the Borgia dominions ) would create the opposite effect, given that the vast majority of the Italian potentates would immediately rush into the arms of Spain, seeking protection, thus making it even more precarious and compromising the any possibility of recognition of the French presence on the peninsula, therefore it is more likely that Cesare will end up being courted by the two factions fighting for the domination of Italy, given his important strategic position, but I am convinced that if he manages to overcome the first 10/15 years of reign in his new duchy, the chances of him being deposed begin to progressively decrease, until the unanimous recognition that that territory is a dynastic possession of the Borgia family

without forgetting that nepotism will certainly still exist, and it was not an exclusive prerogative of the Italians ( Hadrian VI himself tried to fill his government with relatives and friends, in order to strengthen his position in Rome ) but of places where it could be practiced in peninsula there are plenty of them ( just think of Lunigiana and western Emilia, which were regions full of tiny local fiefdoms, which could be very suitable for an attempt to install a relative of the current Pope, for example Innocent VIII, successfully obtains a dynastic fiefdom for his nephew, in the region ) furthermore depending on the precise moment in which the Pod takes place, it could happen that Rodrigo's death itself is postponed for some time, drastically changing the cards on the table


P.s

in case Cesare needs a second wife, I personally would opt for Bianca Riario, so as to reduce the threat of the dynastic claims of the tiger of Forlì and family, in the region, while looking for an important match on an international level for his firstborn

 

[isabella]

Well actually you highlight some more than fair arguments, but I think you lose sight of the important details, for the development of the situation, first of all let's address what Cesare's real priorities are at this moment: the first obviously is to try to obtain a ' pontiff friend of him, is considering that Cesare inherited his father's immense patronage network ( also it must be considered that Rodrigo in his decades as vice-chancellor ( only as vice-chancellor, Rodrigo obtained a figure amounting to 60 thousand ducats, to which must be added other extra earnings from the various secondary positions obtained over time ) had meticulously set aside a substantial financial reserve to support his family ambitions, this little treasure, which is completely foreign to the papal treasury, can become an important resource for Cesare in the future, especially if it is added to the annual income he obtains as head of the papal army ( a sum that varies around 15/10 thousand ducats ), to which his ability to influence must also be added in the curia, thanks to his role as papal standard-bearer and the ties he personally built in the Roman aristocracy, the chances of getting a Pope, who comes from the pro-Borgia faction in the curia, are quite good ( Pius III himself was his creation ) this would be his main purpose, for an obvious reason, to have the titles created by his father recognized and approved by a second pontiff, so as to consolidate his position in Romagna, his other priority is to try to obtain imperial recognition for his possessions, so as to make his eventual deposition legally impossible, without a cause recognized as legitimately valid at an international level, this fact alone, practically read any French / Spanish ambition of being able to play a bad joke on them, at most one could try to support a rival candidate for his dominions or a part of them ( in particular this can be seen purely as an anti-Louis XII function, given that Paris might want to support Caterina Sforza and her children , who have local claims, but who have a serious obstacle to this, namely that the people of Romagna have made it clear that rather than having a Riario - Sforza government again, they would prefer to go to hell, therefore Cesare would be even more supported at the level local, if that were the alternative ) also because Paris cannot afford to depose or annex an Italian state, not openly hostile to it, given that it would nullify its laborious policy with the local potentates, carried out with the aim of further legitimizing its presence and government in the region, but making a such a maneuver ( deposing and then annexing the Borgia dominions ) would create the opposite effect, given that the vast majority of the Italian potentates would immediately rush into the arms of Spain, seeking protection, thus making it even more precarious and compromising the any possibility of recognition of the French presence on the peninsula, therefore it is more likely that Cesare will end up being courted by the two factions fighting for the domination of Italy, given his important strategic position, but I am convinced that if he manages to overcome the first 10/15 years of reign in his new duchy, the chances of him being deposed begin to progressively decrease, until the unanimous recognition that that territory is a dynastic possession of the Borgia family

without forgetting that nepotism will certainly still exist, and it was not an exclusive prerogative of the Italians ( Hadrian VI himself tried to fill his government with relatives and friends, in order to strengthen his position in Rome ) but of places where it could be practiced in peninsula there are plenty of them ( just think of Lunigiana and western Emilia, which were regions full of tiny local fiefdoms, which could be very suitable for an attempt to install a relative of the current Pope, for example Innocent VIII, successfully obtains a dynastic fiefdom for his nephew, in the region ) furthermore depending on the precise moment in which the Pod takes place, it could happen that Rodrigo's death itself is postponed for some time, drastically changing the cards on the table


P.s

in case Cesare needs a second wife, I personally would opt for Bianca Riario, so as to reduce the threat of the dynastic claims of the tiger of Forlì and family, in the region, while looking for an important match on an international level for his firstborn

The biggest problem for a match with Bianca Riario is who she married her OTL husband in 1503, likely before Alexander VI’s death

 

[Alkmaion]

If Cesare tries to get an imperial recognition, ce can very well forfeit his new thief and leave vor Navarra. The Romagna is NOT a place you should attempt to get imperial anything. Rudolf I accepted the border of the HRE being there in a peace agreement with the papacy.
And most of Alexander´s VI money would fall to the treasury. Cesare can´t inheritate from him.
And I´m not sure what could be negative of getting the Romagna into papal hands. Let´s see. +: the Romagna. Cesare ousted the little dynasts, why not oust him too?
And if he decides upon establishing himself in the Romagna, he would have to be a loyal vasall to the pope

 

[Janprimus]

Again, no one is saying that it has to happen.

But if you seriously think that an early 16th century POD is going to magically fix everything and lead to an internal reform and keep the Catholic Christendom intact without serious issues, then your understanding of the issues within the church and in Europe at the time are incredibly simplistic. Unless you have some academic source that can back up your arguments, I disagree profoundly with your findings. Julius II was only part of the issue, not the issue. Papal finances and their fraught issues date back nearly two centuries, it was not a new phenomenon that the Popes as sovereign princes struggled with funding. The Pope was not exempt from the issue that all princes of the period dealt with.

"Because I say so" is not a source.

(...)

Keeping any sort of reform within the church in the 16th century would be incredibly difficult, IMO. We have already seen people attempt to break away from the church in the 15th century, and even in the 15th century, there were attempts to curb the Pope's power through Conciliarism that failed, but still remained a fatal issue for the popes into the sixteenth centuries. As you move into the 16th centuries and monarchies begin to centralize and gain more power, there is no doubt there there will be some that will seek to impose or gain more control over things. France is a special case, as the Gallican Church was largely governed through the Sanction of Bourges and later the Concordat of Bologna. Spain likewise had little issues regarding reformation as a reformation of sorts had been carried out under the Catholic Monarchs which had struck down on the excesses of the Spanish Church and attempted to win it back in. Religious changes also went hand in hand with the decay of the late medieval system, such as in Sweden.

Lots of these arguments about nipping the reformation in the bud count on things that we know now—we know now that the Papacy should've probably responded more quickly to Luther's claims, but in that period, what reason did they have to listen? There was little reason for the Popes in Rome to pay heed to the ramblings of a monk in Wittenburg at the time; no one could have expected that his ideas would've imploded as they did. Even if it is not Luther, the introduction of the printing press and the beginning of people translating the bible into the vernacular and beginning to read it, you are opening a Pandora's box that cannot be closed back. National goals and powers often conflicted with the goals of the church and religious authorities—some lands found the reformation attractive for that reason alone, the increase of secular power.

There I somewhat disagree Initially the Papacy saw Luther as a means to weaken an overbearing Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, still I can't blame them, that it grow this large, or can I. Most Imperial Princes, who converted to Protestantism, did so to weaken Imperial Authority, given how linked the HRE and the Papacy, IMHO it seems that the Italians failed to see, that this damage their position in the German Lands.
As a Dutch Roman Catholic I do blame the Papacy, to have postponed OTL Council of Trent for way too long, because of the feud between the Emperor and the Pope. The Council of Trent improved all things achievable, sadly by that too late time, taking back many territories became an uphill battle, for this hesitation I don't look favourable on the too Italian focused Papacy.

I have very real doubts of the Catholic Christendom holding together into one singular unit—and if it does, it will likely look totally different from the OTL Church. Part of me wonders how much power the Papacy and Curia would even be able to retain for it's self.

There I agree, I think every strong Catholic monarch will demand their own version of the Gallican Church in France. OTOH, if an ATL Council of Trent was held earlier, IMHO the Catholic side would have been much stronger.

No one is saying that Luther has to be the reformer. The spark could easily happen else where.

There I agree, IOTL Luther wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last as a Dutchman John Calvin comes to mind.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

As a Dutch Roman Catholic I do blame the Papacy, to have postponed OTL Council of Trent for way too long, because of the feud between the Emperor and the Pope. The Council of Trent improved all things achievable, sadly by that too late time, taking back many territories became an uphill battle, for this hesitation I don't look favourable on the too Italian focused Papacy.

I definitely agree that the Papacy could've tried earlier to attempt to try and fix things: Clement VII was a huge wrench in that issue, as he was probably the man who was pope at the most critical moment alongside Leo X (excusing Adrian VI because his papacy was so short lived) and he sat on his hands. Paul III at the very least tried to do what he could. Still, there was only so much that the pope himself could do: Charles V was certainly adamant that a council needed to be held, but he was also trying to gain support from the other major Catholic power of the time, France. Given French and Spanish feudings in Italy and the rivalry between the two monarchs, it's no surprise that Francis had no interest in supporting such a council. He too saw the Protestants as a useful cudgel against Charles V, at least until such teachings began to become more widespread in France. Still, even as Francis (and Henri II) adopted harsher measures against the Protestants in France, they were still willing to see the German Protestants as useful allies.

Granted the French aren't necessary for a council: they practically boycotted Trent until the last sessions but one can understand why the emperor wanted to seek French buy-in for a general council to solve the crisis and bring the Lutheran's back into the fold. There was no real attempt in France to even adopt the decrees of Trent: for one, they had no belief that the decrees would help reunite the split between French Catholics and Huguenots, and two because of attempts to infringe on the Gallican Church's independence. Both Charles IX and Henri III held out from implementing the decrees, and iirc Clement VIII demanded their publishing as part of recognizing absolving Henri IV sort of side-stepped the issue because of resistance from the Parlements and Gallicans. I believe some doctrinal decrees were eventually accepted, but that's all.

People had so little faith by the time that Trent opened, they figured it would be closed like other previous attempts. That's the primary reason why initial sessions of Trent were so poorly attended with only about thirty or so prelates. After Paul III, troubles continued into the 1550s: Julius III reopened Trent, but his collusions with France saw the council shuttered, while Marcellus II died after only a few months. Paul IV was even worse for the idea of reform, since he was virulently anti-Spanish and anti-Protestant.

There I agree, I think every strong Catholic monarch will demand their own version of the Gallican Church in France. OTOH, if an ATL Council of Trent was held earlier, IMHO the Catholic side would have been much stronger.

Indeed, part of me wonders if the Papacy might be reduced to mere cultural influence in such a situation. Granted, they'd still be sovereign princes in Italy, but I cannot see any situation where the various Catholic nations end up having Gallican-esque churches being a good thing for the papacy.

There I agree, IOTL Luther wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last as a Dutchman John Calvin comes to mind.

Exactly. Luther was not groundbreaking in his ideas: he just happened to be the first whose ideas were wide-spread and popular.

With the spread of the printing press and the availability of printing in western Europe, it could be anyone. Even Zwingli comes to mind, who was fairly active in Switzerland in the same period as Luther and had a program of reform independent from Luther's own theology. They didn't even meet until the 1530s, and they had disagreements. Same with Johannes Oecolampadius, who was influenced by Luther's initial ideas but had his own viewpoints as well. A lot of earlier reformers also had fairly close connections to Erasmasian viewpoints... Oecolampadius even worked for him!

IMO, the Protestant Reformation owes as much to Erasmus as they do to Luther.

 

[Nuraghe]

I definitely agree that the Papacy could've tried earlier to attempt to try and fix things: Clement VII was a huge wrench in that issue, as he was probably the man who was pope at the most critical moment alongside Leo X (excusing Adrian VI because his papacy was so short lived) and he sat on his hands. Paul III at the very least tried to do what he could. Still, there was only so much that the pope himself could do: Charles V was certainly adamant that a council needed to be held, but he was also trying to gain support from the other major Catholic power of the time, France. Given French and Spanish feudings in Italy and the rivalry between the two monarchs, it's no surprise that Francis had no interest in supporting such a council. He too saw the Protestants as a useful cudgel against Charles V, at least until such teachings began to become more widespread in France. Still, even as Francis (and Henri II) adopted harsher measures against the Protestants in France, they were still willing to see the German Protestants as useful allies.

Granted the French aren't necessary for a council: they practically boycotted Trent until the last sessions but one can understand why the emperor wanted to seek French buy-in for a general council to solve the crisis and bring the Lutheran's back into the fold. There was no real attempt in France to even adopt the decrees of Trent: for one, they had no belief that the decrees would help reunite the split between French Catholics and Huguenots, and two because of attempts to infringe on the Gallican Church's independence. Both Charles IX and Henri III held out from implementing the decrees, and iirc Clement VIII demanded their publishing as part of recognizing absolving Henri IV sort of side-stepped the issue because of resistance from the Parlements and Gallicans. I believe some doctrinal decrees were eventually accepted, but that's all.

People had so little faith by the time that Trent opened, they figured it would be closed like other previous attempts. That's the primary reason why initial sessions of Trent were so poorly attended with only about thirty or so prelates. After Paul III, troubles continued into the 1550s: Julius III reopened Trent, but his collusions with France saw the council shuttered, while Marcellus II died after only a few months. Paul IV was even worse for the idea of reform, since he was virulently anti-Spanish and anti-Protestant.


Indeed, part of me wonders if the Papacy might be reduced to mere cultural influence in such a situation. Granted, they'd still be sovereign princes in Italy, but I cannot see any situation where the various Catholic nations end up having Gallican-esque churches being a good thing for the papacy.


Exactly. Luther was not groundbreaking in his ideas: he just happened to be the first whose ideas were wide-spread and popular.

With the spread of the printing press and the availability of printing in western Europe, it could be anyone. Even Zwingli comes to mind, who was fairly active in Switzerland in the same period as Luther and had a program of reform independent from Luther's own theology. They didn't even meet until the 1530s, and they had disagreements. Same with Johannes Oecolampadius, who was influenced by Luther's initial ideas but had his own viewpoints as well. A lot of earlier reformers also had fairly close connections to Erasmasian viewpoints... Oecolampadius even worked for him!

IMO, the Protestant Reformation owes as much to Erasmus as they do to Luther.

I wonder why you consider it almost as a given, that any Catholic sovereign with enough prestige, would ask for and obtain his own local version of the agreements that France obtained / extorted from the Papacy in Otl ?, technically the simplest opportunity to obtain a similar thing happened after the Western Schism, given the enormous weakness of the Papacy, which to recover part of its previous control and influence over the continental Catholic hierarchy, had literally gone hair in hand, in front of the main sovereigns, to ask for their assistance for this reason, in a similar moment the only thing that the various monarchs asked for was the possibility of having greater weight within the curia and a slight control at a local level ( which was only a recognition of the situation that had been created ) certainly there were kingdoms that went further ( see the Iberian kingdom, which managed to obtain by force, from Sixtus IV, the ability to manage the local church almost autonomously, in many aspects, including the legal system.... alias l 'inquisition ) but apart from that, no one really wanted to go further, they were more interested in increasing ties and possibilities to actively influence Rome, than loosening the ties that bound them, one of the things that were most discussed in the council of Trent, was how to balance and worthily represent the "voice" of the periphery of Catholicism, this is why a bull was drawn up regulating the number of cardinals that each country was entitled to, and at the same time we worked to revise a new liturgy, capable of competing on equal terms with Protestant thought ( certainly we all agree that I arrived 30 years late and another 20 years passed before this reform program was actually active, and in some countries, in particular in France, it only became official in 1615, also because there was the problem of the Huguenots and some royal grievance in adopting a package of reforms which were seen as the work of the Habsburgs, so it was viewed with slight suspicion, but other than that, they did not cause any major protests of note, in fact for the most part they were well received, since they really went in line with the popular will, except later in time when the transition from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar occurred ) I certainly believe that Rome could no longer keep all of Catholic Europe under its control as in the past ( in fact the Western schism demonstrated well how fragile this ability was without having strong secular support for it ) but at least bring the main kingdoms back into the fold ( and those which in Rome were considered the heart of Catholicism, i.e. France , Spain, the Habsburg lands and England ) of Europe, it was not so impossible to do, it was just a particular series of events that hindered the carrying forward of the project, I can certainly see the Papacy being forced to make some slight concessions, but becoming a mere symbolic figurehead seems absolutely excessive to me, why wouldn't it make sense to try to understand what France and the Habsburgs in OTL were really fighting for with regards to Rome? , no one wanted real "independence" but rather they were looking for a way to expand their power base in the curia, so that they could aspire to govern the entire continental ecclesiastical hierarchy indirectly, through a Pope of their own creation, which is why I believe that the formation of the two macro factions ( pro-Habsburg and French ) that dominated and split the cardinal curia for more than 2 centuries, were a real problem for Rome, given that they further limited the Pope's ability to act as arbiter ( i.e. the role that Rome had carved out for itself for centuries ) but that's another story ...

 

[Alkmaion]

(...)

There I somewhat disagree Initially the Papacy saw Luther as a means to weaken an overbearing Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, still I can't blame them, that it grow this large, or can I. Most Imperial Princes, who converted to Protestantism, did so to weaken Imperial Authority, given how linked the HRE and the Papacy, IMHO it seems that the Italians failed to see, that this damage their position in the German Lands.
As a Dutch Roman Catholic I do blame the Papacy, to have postponed OTL Council of Trent for way too long, because of the feud between the Emperor and the Pope. The Council of Trent improved all things achievable, sadly by that too late time, taking back many territories became an uphill battle, for this hesitation I don't look favourable on the too Italian focused Papacy.

There I agree, I think every strong Catholic monarch will demand their own version of the Gallican Church in France. OTOH, if an ATL Council of Trent was held earlier, IMHO the Catholic side would have been much stronger.

There I agree, IOTL Luther wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last as a Dutchman John Calvin comes to mind.

Luther 1525...Cesare 1503...
I don´t really see how Cesare has any impact on reformation or the German parts of the HRE for the time you mention. My own ponderings of possibilities of rise of the Borgia family covered the years 1530 to 1700, with possibilities to rise by using the various conflicts of rhis era to advance